Prop 19: What were they smoking?

I like the idea of legalizing marijuana. If it is legal, I might even try it sometime. But I have decided to vote NO! on Prop 19. Here is why.

But first a quick summary of of what the Proposition (from the voter guide)

• Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use.
• Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older.
• Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using in public, or smoking it while minors are present.
• Maintains prohibitions against driving while impaired.
• Limits employers’ ability to address marijuana use to situations where job performance is actually impaired.

Arguments in favor:

• people are doing it anyway. let's stop the hypocrisy
• prohibition has not only failed, but has given raise drug cartel violence (mainly in Mexico), corruption, wasted police resources which could be better used to combat other real crime
• there is allegedly a $16 billion dollar illegal marijuana economy in California, but the state doesn't make a dime from it. legalize, regulate and tax it. we need to money for our schools and our infrastructure
  
• if alcohol can be controlled, so can marijuana (now, minors can allegedly get their hands on pot more easily than alcohol)
  

Arguments against:

• it's a flawed proposition. even if you like legalizing marijuana, Prop 19 is not the way to do it
• prop 19 permits drivers to smoke pot until the moment they start driving
• it doesn't provide any objective standards for determining what constitutes "driving under the influence"
• it prevents employers from taking action against a stoned employee until after something bad happens
  
• employers may not be able to comply with federal drug-free workplace standards, and so California may lose billions of dollars worth of federal contracts
• school districts may lose billions in federal funds
• if such a flawed proposition becomes law, given California's strong law against legislative tampering with what voters enact through ballot initiatives, we may be stuck with a very bad law
  

From what I understand from reading the actual wording, the second against argument above seems disingenuous. Here is the actual wording:

11304. Effect of Act and Definitions.
(a) This act shall not be construed to affect, limit, or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.

I am no lawyer, but I think the above clearly allows for other existing or new statutes to stipulate standards for what constitutes "impairment". I can see a law being passed that specifies a legal limit for THC content in blood, for instance, similar to blood alcohol content.

That no such scientific recommendation exists now is a good argument. And that's one of the reasons I don't like this proposition. We shouldn't pass a law that allows millions of people to drive while stoned, and then try to figure out safety standards after the fact.

(BTW, why only K-12 schools? Is it ok to smoke pot in a childcare center?!)

The other argument that swayed me is the one about employers inability to preempt accidents caused by employees potentially impaired by pot. The relevant words in the proposition are these:

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

This is a stupid way to write a law. (What were the proposition writers smoking?)

Given these two serious flaws, and the last bullet in the against list above, I think it's not a good idea to make Prop 19 law. Perhaps, the better way to legalize pot is by legislation, where it is possible to continually refine the law and plug loopholes.

And then there is the question of what the feds would do. May be as long as the democrats control the white house, they will let this slide (even that is doubtful, given Eric Holder's stance). But once there is a republican president in the white house, we can be sure the feds will be all over the California "sinners".

So for now, legal pot will have to be but a pipe dream.