Legal marijuana?

Not so fast, opponents say





When the Election Day smoke clears on Nov. 9, pot could be legal across the state.

At least one major poll indicates that Proposition 64—the Adult Use of Marijuana Act—is on its way to becoming law.

According to a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times survey conducted Sept. 1 to 8, the proposition is supported by 58 percent of the nearly 2,000 respondents polled.

If Proposition 64 does pass, it would legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults 21 and over in California and impose a 15 percent sales tax that could bring record revenues to the state—up to $1 billion annually, some experts predict. People currently incarcerated for pot-related crimes would either be re-sentenced or released with their conviction record expunged.

In the second of a two-part report on Proposition 64, The Acorn explores the views of two panelists who discussed the issue at a town hall forum Sept. 29 at Valley Presbyterian Hospital in Van Nuys.

Lynne Lyman, director of the California Drug Policy Alliance, and Lauren Michaels, legislative affairs manager for the California Police Chiefs Association, are sharply divided on the issue.

Lyman is a fierce proponent of the initiative while Michaels is concerned about its consequences.

Lyman believes the passage of Proposition 64 would represent a major civil rights victory and help to lower the arrest rates of African Americans and Latinos.

The police, Lyman said, arrest and incarcerate African Americans and Latinos for possessing, smoking or selling marijuana at a higher rate than whites—even though studies show that whites use marijuana slightly more than African Americans and Latinos.

Of the 500,000 people arrested in California for possessing a small quantity of marijuana from 1990 to 2000, a 2010 Drug Policy Alliance report showed that a disproportional number were African Americans and Latinos—mostly young men.

From 2006 to 2008, the Alliance studied arrest rates in 25 major California cities, Lyman said. African Americans were arrested for pot possession at a rate four to 12 times greater than whites, the study showed. In Los Angeles, blacks were arrested seven times the rate of whites, according to the study.

Lyman also said California’s medical marijuana laws, which make it legal for patients to use the drug with a doctor’s prescription, aren’t being applied fairly.

If undocumented Latinos are arrested for marijuana possession or use—medical or not—they often face criminal charges based on federal immigration law, Lyman said. The issue would be resolved if pot were legalized.

Another benefit of Proposition 64, Lyman said, is that it would impose strict testing requirements on growers to ensure that plants are not contaminated with pesticides, rodenticides and other chemicals. Those precautions aren’t in place now.

Money raised from legal pot sales would be used to fund marijuana impact studies and research; help communities impacted by the so-called war on drugs; pay for youth drug prevention and treatment programs; and curb the abuse of opioids, prescription drugs and alcohol.

Local governments would also reap a financial boon with 20 percent of revenues being returned to municipalities, she said.

Not so fast

In making her case against Proposition 64, Lauren Michaels focused on how the state is handling issues regarding medical marijuana, which was legalized in 1996. She said California already has an effective medical marijuana structure in place, which she said gives power to small growers.

But the passage of Proposition 64, Michaels said, would change the game on how marijuana is cultivated, dispensed and manufactured with the possibility of big business pushing small franchises out of the market.

“Regulations are very much in flux,” Michaels said.

Michaels said there are about 60,000 small cultivation sites, mostly located in the northern part of the state. To allow large corporations to come in could decimate the timber industry, she said, as marijuana growers compete with lumber companies for land.

She added that the likelihood of contaminated products will increase if big business takes over marijuana production. There would be more bureaucracy, she said, and that could cause problems.

“The devil is in the details,” Michaels said.

Cities would also have to cede control of many marijuana matters to the state, she said.

Local governments, Michaels noted, would no longer be in charge of issuing permits to growers and they wouldn’t be able to ban residents from growing marijuana indoors—even if those residents live near elementary schools.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *