By Hutton Marshall, Staff Writer
Elections are today and Proposition 19 has been one of the most controversial topics of election season, leading to a debate about the proposition on campus last Thursday.
Proposition 19, known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, would legalize the personal use of marijuana among adults older than the age of 21.
The debate took place in Arts and Letters 101, and the room was packed to the breaking point with students and faculty who lined the walls and filled the aisles.
Despite the packed house, the lecture hall was silent as participants were eager to hear the debate.
Professor Donald Dripps of the University of San Diego Law School explained for the first 20 minutes the pros of Proposition 19, citing personal freedom and liberty. Dripps expressed the most practical way of dealing with marijuana would be to treat it the same as any other consumer product and said to “count (the marijuana users) willingness to pay for (marijuana) as a benefit that weighs against the harms.”
Dripps said in California, the willingness to pay outweighs the harm it would do if legalized.
In opposition of Proposition 19 was John Redman, executive director of the statewide Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug prevention organization. Redman critiqued the proposition by saying it lacked any kind of system for regulating or taxing personal use.
He also felt passing Proposition 19 would negatively impact public health and foreign policy.
Sophomore Eric Dobko commented on the importance of responsible use in aiding the process of legalization.
“Cannabis is not illegal because it is dangerous, it is deemed dangerous because it is illegal,” Dobko said.
One of the biggest legal complications of Proposition 19 is its direct violation of federal law, which trumps state law.
Dripps, however, assured the crowd the federal government would “do nothing by way of possessiary offences in California,” because it would be up to Congress to arrest and try these minor offenses. He continued to urge that this violation of federal law would only be temporary, because the federal government will almost certainly reform its marijuana restrictions when it sees what a “great success” Proposition 19 is.
As far as incentives pushing toward legalization, one of the most commonly argued angles is the revenue that would be produced from taxing marijuana. It would also greatly reduce the cost of police enforcement for current marijuana laws, though Redman protested that there could potentially be a great financial burden on the state arising from a spike in drug abuse.
Redman countered this promise of revenue by saying how large businesses up north, created in anticipation of Proposition 19 coming into effect, will be the only real moneymakers as a result of the law, becoming the “new drug cartels of California.”
“(Proposition) 19 will turn California into an organized cartel that will compromise our individual freedoms,” junior Brad Petersen said.
Other students were less critical of the system that would be established should the proposition pass.
“The regulation of marijuana will stop the drug dealers from gaining from the trade and allow the working population to grow positively from it,” Sophomore Kyle Greenhalgh said.
While there was very little common ground reached during the debate, both men made a clear distinction between the goal of drug reformation and Proposition 19.
“If you think that legalizing marijuana is a good thing, then I would say that Proposition 19 is about the worst way you could go about doing it,” Redman said.
Dripps admitted the law “wasn’t perfect” and had its shortcomings, but closed the argument with a question for attendees.
“If you’re afraid, if you’re in doubt, pull that curtain behind you and ask yourself, have we ever gone wrong when we’ve put freedom first?”
