LA Times & Prop 19

It’s been nearly two months since I’ve written here.. back to work!

For those not in California, here’s a description of Proposition 19:

The act would authorize possession of one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption by people 21 and older, permit marijuana use in private residences or public places licensed for on-site consumption, and allow marijuana cultivation in private residences for personal use. It includes strong restrictions regarding the sale or use of marijuana to or around minors, and would permit city and county governments to regulate and tax it.
(source)

I’ve read or heard many arguments in favor of this proposition, but I haven’t seen much against it (I know, I know.. I live in San Francisco). Yesterday, the LA Times published an editorial coming out against the measure. I hadn’t seen some of these arguments before, but I still didn’t find them to be too compelling. Excerpts and responses follow:

[The] proposition is in fact an invitation to chaos. It would permit each of California’s 478 cities and 58 counties to create local regulations regarding the cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana.

They do have a point that the complexity in implementation and enforcement isn’t ideal, but it seems like this is the most reasonable way to move forward. Communities that don’t want legalization can make their own rules, much like “dry counties” in the US can have strict rules about alcohol.

Regardless of how the vote goes on Nov. 2, under federal law marijuana will remain a Schedule I drug, whose use for any reason is proscribed by Congress. Sure, California could go it alone, but that would set up an inevitable conflict with the federal government that might not end well for the state.

Oh, no… conflict! There should be conflict. We need conflict. There is essentially zero debate about this at the national level right now, and if California can force the issue, then that would be great. President Obama replies to reasonable questions about this with chuckles and derision right now, but a change in California would force an actual debate to take place. Or at least it would force some yelling or something.

Finally, the editorial seems to go off the deep end:

Far from helping the state’s economic outlook, Proposition 19 could cause substantial harm. For instance, it would put employers in a quandary by creating a protected class of on-the-job smokers, bestowing a legal right to use marijuana at work unless employers could actually prove that it would impair an employee’s job performance. Employers would no longer have the right to screen for marijuana use or discipline a worker for being high.

I read through the relevant parts of the proposition itself (pdf link) and can’t see how this would be the case. The relevant line from the proposition is:

Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

How would this be any different from alcohol? Employers don’t typically screen for alcohol, but can take action if it impedes job performance. To say that a worked could not be disciplined for being high seems like a ridiculous interpretation.

What’s most notable about this editorial is what it doesn’t discuss. It’s focused on legal technicalities, which are relevant, but basically ignores the big picture about legalization.

First, it ignores the whole basis for prohibition and fails to make any scientific arguments about differences between marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. I’ve yet to see anyone even attempt to make the claim that marijuana is more harmful. It’s not surprising that the California Beer and Beverage Distributors have given money in opposition of Prop 19.

Second, and more importantly, it ignores the grave human toll that the current drug policy has inflicted on the US and Mexico. By every measure, the war on drugs has been a failure. We’re paying an astronomical amount of money for a policy that has let drug prices go down, potency go up, our prisons fill up and a bloody war break out in Mexico. Marijuana usage in the US is higher than it is in The Netherlands and Portugal (where decriminalization has occurred).

This is a big deal for Mexico, though. I recently had a chance to hear former Mexican president Vicente Fox speak and he was quite forceful in his support for Prop 19 and made it clear that it would save Mexican lives. Just today I saw this picture and caption on Andrew Sullivan’s blog:

A corpse lies on the floor next to a car outside a house in Acapulco, Guerrero state, Mexico on September 23, 2010. Seven people were killed Thursday with assault rifles AK47 during a clash between drug dealers. The Mexican government declared war on the drug cartels on December 2006, which has since left 22,743 people dead according to official records. By Pedro Pardo/AFP/Getty Images.

(my emphasis)

22,748 is a staggering number. For comparison: in the US, a country with 3x the population and a lot of guns, we had under 13,000 total firearm-related deaths in 2007 (source). We’re paying billions of dollars for a policy that clearly isn’t accomplishing its goals, is filling up our prisons and is costing thousands of lives. But the LA Times is worried that it’ll make local laws too complicated. Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.