Special to The Enterprise

The Controlled Substances Act is the federal governmentÕs existing ban on drugs, passed by Congress in 1970. Currently, marijuana is one of the narcotics covered under this ban. Article 6, paragraph 2, of the U.S. Constitution is the supremacy clause affirming federal law to be supreme law of the land.

In other words, Proposition 19 on the Nov. 2 California ballot, which would decriminalize marijuana, arguably has no legal basis because it violates federal law.

For this reason, Prop. 19Õs passage would set a dangerous precedent. If approved, California and other states would be able to use the law to pick and choose which federal laws they will follow, and which ones they will not.

The Southern Confederacy was fighting to uphold this allotment of power Ñ namely, individual states have influence over the central government. Last time I checked, the Confederacy lost the Civil War.

Setting this minor detail aside, advocates have pulled all the stops to get the measure passed. The latest clever sales pitch is that taxing and regulating marijuana would represent a net financial gain to local governments.

Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Policy, highly disputes that claim: To test the idea of legalizing and taxing marijuana, we need only look at already legal drugs Ñ alcohol and tobacco. We know the taxes collected on these substances pale in comparison to social and health care costs related to their widespread use.

A recent study conducted by Rand Drug Policy Research Center also questions that assertion. Analysts warn about various new administrative, regulatory and even enforcement expenditures as the result of Prop. 19Õs passage. If one reads Prop. 19Õs text, nowhere does it spell out how the state or local governments will cover these new costs.

The Rand study goes further than that, arguing if marijuana is decriminalized, chances are the federal government would withhold highway or other federal funds to penalize the state for not abiding by federal laws.

The Rand study also predicts many pot transactions likely will evade taxation: California should not rule out the possibility that tax evasion would wipe out essentially all of the potential revenues from a $50-per-ounce excise tax.

Thus it is not difficult to foresee marijuana legalization financially punishing the state, rather than helping it.

Another assertion by decriminalization supporters is that legalization will largely put drug dealers out of business, because people will no longer need to buy pricey pot from them. According to the Rand study, this claim is also suspect. Analysts argue if decriminalization were to pass, marijuana prices would drop, because drug dealing would not carry costs associated with evading law enforce-ment for possession costs dealers currently pass on to the consumer.

As a result of these decreased costs, Rand predicts pot consumption likely would increase anywhere from 75 to 150 percent.

Another problem with the initiative is that its various provisions are nearly unenforceable. For example, how is the state supposed to tax and regulate marijuana grown by private citizens?

Additionally, there is a stipulation in the measure that makes it a crime for parents to smoke the substance in front of their children. How are the police going to be able to discern between parents merely possessing the drug and parents who smoke it in front of their children?

Considering the current struggling economy, increased pot consumption is hardly what California needs at the moment. While some can argue the dangers of smoking marijuana, it is well known that marijuana is an intoxicant. As such, the substance impairs judgment, which does not help a struggling worker either continue to work or seek employment.

It is also worth considering marijuana like any other drug. While on its own it may not trigger violent behavior, it has much potential to do so when mixed with other substances, like alcohol other drugs.

Ultimately, the supporters of this law are not going to have to clean up the mess once it is made. That responsibility will fall primarily on law enforcement and the California public at large. Proposition 19 merely decriminalizes marijuana; it does not spell out how to legalize it inexpensively and safely.

As such, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Prop. 19 is likely to be fraught with all sorts of unintended consequences. Advocates are not going to foot the bill for decriminalization, California citizens are.

Considering the stateÕs budget crisis and the lagging economy, this may result in a financial train wreck.

Ñ David Musser is a Davis resident.

Comments

comments