Pubdate: Fri, 1 Oct 2010
Source: Union, The (Grass Valley, CA)
Copyright: 2010 The Union
Contact: http://apps.theunion.com/utils/forms/lettertoeditor/
Website: http://www.theunion.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/957
Note: Keith Royal is the Nevada County Sheriff.
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

PROP. 19: VOTING NO IS THE BEST CHOICE

Proposition 19 will allow every city and county in the state to have 
completely different ordinances regarding growing and taxation of marijuana.

It will not reduce the cost of marijuana, it will not eliminate the 
cartels, there is no guarantee of an increase in tax revenues, it 
will jeopardize safety in the workplace, and it will increase the 
work load for law enforcement.

Section 11301 of Proposition 19 allows local governments (a total of 
533) the ability to adopt ordinances or similar regulations to 
control, license, regulate, permit, or otherwise authorize commercial 
activities regarding the cultivation and sale of marijuana.

Local governments may permit the retail sale of not more than one 
ounce per transaction for personal use in "licensed premises." Local 
governments have authority to "prohibit and punish" through "civil 
fines or other remedies," possession for sale, cultivation, 
processing, or transportation that was not obtained lawfully.

Proposition 19, Section 11304 (c) states, "No person shall be 
punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or 
privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by the Act 
or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided 
however, that the existing right of an employer to address 
consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee 
shall not be affected."

So, in other words, an employee may test positive for marijuana, may 
bring marijuana to work, may consume marijuana at the workplace with 
no consequence from the employer. The right of an employer is limited 
to the ability "to address consumption" only where that consumption 
has actually impaired the job performance of a specific employee.

The employer's only recourse is to speak with the employee after the 
impaired job performance has resulted in an accident or other 
disruption in the workplace.

This situation most certainly will lead to an increase in insurance 
costs and higher workers compensation rates for California employers. 
It also may make businesses ineligible for Federal Grants requiring a 
"drug-free workplace."

Proponents indicate there will be a reduction in the price of 
marijuana, referring to Prohibition as an example. After Prohibition, 
the Federal Government set uniform standards for the sale for alcohol.

With Proposition 19, California would be the stand-along state 
supplying 49 other states. The black market and the cartels will 
still have the incentive to grow on our public lands with nothing but 
a profit in mind.

This initiative does not authorize the state to levy any specific 
marijuana taxes, so the state will have no increased tax revenue. 
Local governments may only tax commercial growers, not those growing 
for their personal use. The incentive will be to grow for "personal 
use" to avoid any taxes.

Section 11304 deals with the "Effect of the Act and Definitions." It 
specifies that a penalty shall exist for bringing cannabis to a 
school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12 
grades, inclusive. Presumably, this would permit the bringing of 
marijuana onto the grounds of a pre-school or a day-care center which 
is another major oversight of this initiative.

Section 11361(c) is an amendment to the Health and Safety Code which 
creates a new misdemeanor for a person over 21 who furnishes 
marijuana to a person who is 18, 19, or 20.

There will be increased costs associated with this provision, which 
will be seen by increased court calendars, county jail commitments 
and law enforcement actions.

There are those who say drug use is a victimless crime and, 
therefore, should be legalized. This is just not so. The effects are 
so far-reaching that it is often difficult to quantify. Health 
issues, family dysfunction, employment costs all lead to the 
ever-growing social costs.

We already have Proposition 215 which provides for medical needs of 
those that may benefit from the use of marijuana. It has proven to 
be, in large part, a legal nightmare. I've had citizens contact me 
saying they voted for Proposition 215, thinking they were doing the 
right thing.

Now they are living with the undesirable consequences in their own 
neighborhoods. If they could go back they would, but they cannot.

Please do not be misled by the title of the Act, "The Regulate, 
Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010." The title does not accurately 
reflect the content of the initiative. Review the language in the act 
for yourself, and I believe you also will conclude that voting No is 
the best choice. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake