Drug Czars Speak Out On Why Proposition 19 Would No Be Good For California

 

Drug Czars Speak Out On Why Proposition 19 Would Not Be Good For California
 
 
In a recent Op-Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times, Director Gil Kerlikowske, along with former directors of the Office of National Drug Control, spoke out on why Californians should “just say no” to Proposition 19. 
 
This piece points out several key issues with proponents’ arguments for Proposition 19 which would legalize marijuana for personal use in California. One issue addressed is the argument that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 would create much needed revenues for California. The authors’ sensibly point out that “no country in the world has legalized marijuana to the extent envisioned by Proposition 19, so it is impossible to predict precisely the consequences of wholesale legalization.” In other words, there is no precedent showing that regulating and taxing marijuana would generate significant revenues. 
 
Another argument often touted for legalization of marijuana is that it “would allow law enforcement to focus on other crimes.” These experts point to the fact that law enforcement officials are not currently focusing much effort on possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults. However, if Proposition 19 is passed, law enforcement officials would be required to enforce laws against “ingesting or smoking marijuana while minors are present.” Is this enforcement requirement necessarily allowing law enforcement to focus on other crimes? Would this not require police officers to enter into private homes? Measure distances from a pot smoker and a child?
 
The Op-Ed also addresses the societal costs of legalization. Amsterdam’s “coffee shop” is often cited by proponents of legalization as having no detrimental affect on Dutch society. However, after years of being bombarded by “drug tourists,” organized crime related to drugs and a host of other public nuisances, the Dutch have actually reduced the number of “coffee shop” houses in its country. The have gone from having thousands of such shops to only a few hundred. 
 
Finally, the argument of taxing and regulating marijuana the same as alcohol and tobacco is addressed. These experienced individuals astutely point out that “people don’t typically grow their own tobacco or distill their own spirits…Marijuana, though is easy and cheap to cultivate, indoors or out, and Proposition 19 would allow individuals to grow as much as 25 square feet of marijuana for ‘personal consumption’.”   Essentially many would not voluntarily pay a higher tax, when they can grow it themselves.