The longer this November election buildup goes on, the more information and misinformation tumbles out in the news and in campaign slogans, making it increasingly difficult to understand the ballot initiatives. This was clearly the case going into the debate over legalizing marijuana (Proposition 19) that highlighted a forum sponsored by the Palisades Democratic Club at the Woman’s Club last Wednesday. Although each of the nine ballot initiatives was adroitly explained, the position on each was decidedly from the Democratic Party point of view, except Prop.19, and afterwards there was still plenty to debate on both sides of the marijuana issue. The formal debate was conducted between James Gray, a former Orange County Superior Court judge and former federal prosecutor, and John Redman, a 10-year veteran on drug policy and marijuana laws and executive director of Communities in Action, the statewide alcohol and drug prevention organization, Prop. 19 would allow Californians over the age of 21 to possess marijuana for recreational use and permit them to grow pot in small residential spaces. It would also allow local governments to tax retail sales and production. The adversaries did agree on one thing: drugs are ruining people’s lives. Gray laid out the grim reality. ‘Drugs are awash in this country,’ he said. ‘You can get drugs in prison, Charles Manson was selling drugs in prison. But, what we’re doing is not working.’ Gray, who encourages a ‘yes’ on Prop. 19, is more focused on the amount of money involved in drug-dealing being far more harmful than the drug itself. Proud of his support from a wide political spectrum’from the ACLU to the Young Republicans of Orange County’he notes that marijuana is the largest cash crop in the state, bigger than grapes. He argues that by legalizing and regulating marijuana for adults in the same manner that liquor and cigarettes are regulated, you take away revenue from juvenile groups’children selling to their peers. Gray assured the audience that existing laws against selling drugs to minors and driving under the influence will be maintained. He also cited the support of the California NAACP, which states that African Americans are disproportionately affected by marijuana law enforcement and make up a high percentage of those serving jail time for marijuana-related offenses. On this issue, Redman was particularly cogent, stating that the two populations most affected by a change in drug policy would be youth and minority communities. ‘Minorities are against it [Prop. 19], because they know what’s going to happen. By legalizing marijuana, you will not eliminate juvenile gangs. Drug cartels deal drugs, weapons and home invasion,’ he said. Redman asserted that making marijuana available through Prop. 19 would increase drug use. ‘The top three drugs in this country are liquor, tobacco and prescription drugs,’ he said. ‘Marijuana is fourth, because it is not available, and there’s a stigma attached to it.’ He suggested that with higher use would come more need for drug treatment and prevention, but that in the United States, ‘we spend a lot of money on enforcement, but little on treatment and prevention.’ Furthermore, Prop. 19 doesn’t allow for easy testing. There is no way to prove the person is intoxicated, he said, adding, ‘marijuana addiction is skyrocketing.’ The argument for and against legalization pivots on the best guess about the future, and certainly if the initiative passes, the road map to its implementation is fraught with confusion. Redman stated that Prop.19 is a violation of federal law, adding that ‘It will be utter confusion. There will be a lot of cases in court because of all the different jurisdictions. It will be a hodgepodge without regulations, such as we have with food and alcohol regulation.’ Gray countered that ‘no city will be involved unless they opt in. There will be no advertising, no glamorizing.’
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
