Response to the "Vote Know On Prop 19" Campaign - Proposition 19 Is Only The First Step

Opposition Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana arrests, saving millions in prison costs.

First of all, please point me at anyone who is seriously saying that passing Proposition 19 will single-handedly and immediately "end the War on Drugs."  It would be a huge victory, though.  One of the anti-cannabis opposition's biggest fears is that we pass this thing, not because they they believe (as an organization) it will actually be a massive public health and safety nightmare, but because they know it will not be.  And how do they continue fighting their "war on drugs" when anyone can point to California and say, "Yeah, so what about them?"

"Stoners Against Tax Cannabis Initiative" Misguided

This afternoon, I was made aware of a new source of opposition to Proposition 19, a blog written by a self-described "professional stoner".  She identifies and addresses some eighteen "myths" that Proposition 19 supporters believe.  I firmly believe one of the biggest threats to the successful passage of this initiative in November is this kind of paranoid mistrust gone rampant.  I will be addressing her concerns one by one, and, if Miss Dragonfly would like to respond, I would welcome an honest dialogue that educates everyone more about both current marijuana laws and Proposition 19.

Feinstein supports campaign to defeat marijuana legalization measure

From the LA Times:

California's senior U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein has endorsed "No on Prop 19," the main opposition campaign to Proposition 19.  She issued a statement today calling the measure "a jumbled legal nightmare that will make our highways, our workplaces and our communities less safe."

Dale Sky Clare, a spokeswoman for Tax Cannabis 2010, responded that she was not surprised by the lack of support from Feinstein and other top officials. "I'm just not putting a lot of faith in politicians to lead," she said. "The voters have always led on this issue."

California voters, please take a moment and contact Senator Feinstein.  Ask her if she is aware that:

1. Regarding highways: Proposition 19 specifically states, "nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;" (proposed Health and Safety Code, Article 5, Chapter 5, Division 10, Section 11300(c)(iii)).
2. Regarding workplaces: "No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this 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" (proposed Health and Safety Code, Article 5, Chapter 5, Division 10, Section 11304(c)). [Emphasis added.]
3. Regarding our communities -- detailed studies (such as this one, this one, or this one) have shown that drugs are not a major cause of crime.  In 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drugs and the results, both on public health and safety, have been largely positive-- certainly better than the status quo in America.

Marijuana, Accutane, and the Suspension of Science By the Cultural Left

From Townhall.com

Townhall columnist Hugh Hewitt attempts to argue against Proposition 19 by painting Prop 19 proponents as ignorant, and the younger demographic that tends to support it as impulsive risk-takers.  I'll more fully explore the health risks and benefits of cannabis in another post, but for now, I'll just point out that, as he says, "Anyone with a bookmark to Google can quickly access the studies that detail the known long term and serious side-effects of chronic marijuana use," but they can also see all the counter studies that show no greater mortality for cannabis users, and that cannabis (even smoked) does not cause cancer.

Deconstructing the Opposition's Claims About the RAND Taxation Analysis

One of the issues in the recent study by the RAND Corporation that has been seized by opponents of Proposition 19 is that the tax revenue from ending cannabis prohibition will not be as great as projected. Roger Salazar, spokesman for "No on Prop 19" claims the RAND study shows, "...even the local tax revenues could be dramatically lower than the claims made by the proponents. In fact, RAND said there would be a greater financial reward to evade new local taxes on a pound of marijuana than there would be to smuggle a pound of marijuana from Mexico to California."

Of course, what the disingenuous Mr. Salazar is not mentioning are two major problems with the RAND analysis being applied to Proposition 19 that I pointed out in my last post, among other numerous caveats made by the authors of the study themselves and conveniently left out of Mr. Salazar's list of "findings," taken primarily from their page two summaries.