Today I got in the mail the Automobile Club of Southern California’s ballot recommendations, limited to four of them. I’ve belonged to AAA for 25 years, and have gotten their insurance for 23.

CEO Thomas V. McKernan writes:

Dear Southern California Neighbor:

After carefully analyzing the statewide propositions, we wanted to share with you our thoughts and information on four of the propositions that are particularly important.

They’re right on two propositions. They oppose Prop. 21, which would impose an $18 per car tax to fund state parks. Even if you don’t use them. (My better idea: Privatize the parks. Turn them over to Disney.)

And they back Prop. 26, which requires “fees” to be passed with a two-thirds vote of the people. That would prevent politicians from redefining taxes, which already require a two-thirds vote of the people, as “fees” that currently require only a majority vote.

But AAA crashes and burns on two important propositions. They write:

No on Proposition 19 – Legalizes marijuana, would increase drugged driving and traffic crashes, could allow employees to come to work high, and bans employers from being able to drug test their employees for marijuana.

That’s all wrong, as I explained yesterday. Unfortunately, McKernan and AAA are part of the state’s political establishment, which opposes Prop. 19. And if they’re worried about crashes, why don’t they favor banning alcohol, which causes far more deadly accidents than the hippie lettuce, as was done during alcohol Prohibition? Down with Demon Rum!

Finally, he writes:

YES on Proposition 22 — Protects road and transit money by prohibiting the state from raiding local gas and tax funds.

Actually, Prop. 22 would guarantee the funding of redevelopment agencies that rob citizens to benefit private special interests. Such robbery violates the Fourth Amendment right to not be deprived of property without due process, and the Commandment “Thou shalt not steal.” How would McKernan like it of the government, using Prop. 22, stole his home and gave it to some rich company like Walmart?

When I was younger, I would boycott AAA for this. But nowadays, I oppose so much that companies do I’d have to boycott almost everything.

They’re still wrong. And when my insurance expires in 11 months, I’ll consider something else.

Oh, and it’s too bad they didn’t back Prop. 23, the jobs-saving proposition that would suspend the jobs-killing AB 32. When Prop. 23 loses, gas prices are going to rise. What happened to protecting California drivers?

Nov. 1, 2010

I thought the L.A. Times was supposed to be “progressive” and “liberal”? Actually, they’re an establishment, elitist, government-loving paper. As shown by their editorial opposing Prop. 19, which would legalize marijuana in California.

It’s the same position taken by the Chamber of Commerce, Arnold (shown toking in the picture), Meg, Jerry, Barbara, Carly, DiFi, etc. Establishment. Elitist. Government-loving.

In their editorial, the Times writes:

Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States. Seventy years of criminal prohibition, “Just Say No” sloganeering and a federal drug war that now incarcerates 225,000 people a year have not diminished the availability or use of — or apparently the craving for — cannabis. And helping meet the demand is California, the nation’s top grower. Marijuana production here results in an estimated $14 billion in sales, and its cultivation and distribution are now tightly woven into the state’s economy. It is grown in homes, in backyards and even in national parks, including Yosemite.

So then, why don’t we stop putting people in jail for using it or selling it? The Times continues:

Whether marijuana should be legal is a valid subject for discussion. Californians ought to welcome a debate about whether marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol, whether legalization would or would not increase consumption, and whether crime would go down as a result of decriminalization. But Proposition 19 is so poorly thought out, badly crafted and replete with loopholes and contradictions that it offers an unstable platform on which to base such a weighty conversation.

No it isn’t. I’ve read hundreds of these propositions, and 19 is as well-written as most of them, maybe better. As Debra Saunders writes today:

The establishment spin goes something like this: Even if marijuana legalization makes sense, Prop. 19 is so poorly written that voters must reject it.

Bunk. The measure is tightly written to give state and local governments unimpeded authority in deciding whether to allow the sale of marijuana, and if so, how to tax and regulate it.

There won’t be a better bill. Marijuana prohibition enables and enriches criminal cartels and gangs. Californians have a chance to end the madness, and voters should grab it.

Right. Let’s get back to the Times’ paralogy:

But the proposition is in fact an invitation to chaos. It would permit each of California’s 478 cities and 58 counties to create local regulations regarding the cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana. In other words, the law could change hundreds of times from county to county. In Los Angeles County alone it could mean 88 different sets of regulations.

So what’s wrong with that? California now has 38 million highly diverse people, and its central government obviously is dysfunctional. The governor and Legislature can’t even pass a budget that’s on time and not wildly out of balance. Let the locals decide. It’s called democracy.

Californians cannot legalize marijuana. Regardless of how the vote goes on Nov. 2, under federal law marijuana will remain a Schedule I drug, whose use for any reason is proscribed by Congress. Sure, California could go it alone, but that would set up an inevitable conflict with the federal government that might not end well for the state.

Bring it on! It’s time for the states to start standing up against federal tyranny by nullifying laws by the centralized regime in Washington, the way Northern states nullified federal fugitive slave laws before the Civil War. Typically, the Times is on the side of the federal tyrants instead of Californians.

One reason given by Proposition 19 supporters for legalizing marijuana is that California is in dire fiscal straits, and taxing the cannabis crop could ultimately enrich state and local coffers by $1.4 billion a year. But again, critics say that argument is misleading. The act essentially requires local governments that choose to regulate and tax marijuana to establish new bureaucracies and departments, and much of the new revenue could be eaten up by the cumbersome process of permitting and licensing sales, consumption, cultivation and transportation.

Who cares about the tax issue? Governments at all levels already grab too much of our money anyway. If local governments get less than expected, that’s all to the good. And if the licensing process is too complicated, then simplify it.

Far from helping the state’s economic outlook, Proposition 19 could cause substantial harm. For instance, it would put employers in a quandary by creating a protected class of on-the-job smokers, bestowing a legal right to use marijuana at work unless employers could actually prove that it would impair an employee’s job performance. Employers would no longer have the right to screen for marijuana use or discipline a worker for being high. But common sense dictates that a drug-free environment is crucial at too many workplaces to name — schools, hospitals, emergency response and public safety agencies, among others.

Wrong. As the Legislative Analyst’s report put it back in June, in language that’s in the explanation in the ballot pamphlet sent to voters:

Oct. 31, 2010

By JOHN SEILER

Maybe the most controversial, certainly the most aromatic proposition on the November 2 ballot is Proposition 19, which would decriminalize marijuana. Not just for medical uses, but for use by any adult. Local governments would have the primary task of implementing Prop. 19, including collecting taxes for local use. The state could not collect taxes.

The Orange County Register, where I am an editorial writer, recently hosted those for and against Prop. 19. Although not an actual debate, the two sides were interviewed within the span of three hours, providing a point-counterpoint.

Backing Prop. 19 were Judge James P. Gray, a  retired superior court judge from Orange County. He long has been involved in drug legalization and other libertarian causes. His new book is, “A Voter’s Handbook: Effective Solutions to America’s Problems.”

He was joined by Hanna Liebman Dershowitz, an attorney in Culver City and a member of the Prop. 19 Legal Committee.

Taking the side of opposition were Dick Ackerman, a lawyer and former Republican leader in the California Senate. And Sandra Hutchens, who just was re-elected as the sheriff of Orange County.

Local smoke

Gray began with an argument for local control: “The beauty of this is the concept of federalism, not just within each state, but each city. Cities are allowed to opt in. The cities are in control. The cities will make the regulations. A private company wouldn’t have a right to sell it without city approval.

“Some of the opposition slaps the face of the cities, saying, ‘This is too complicated for you.’ That is a false concern.”

Ackerman disagreed, “This puts it all on the local governments. That would mean up to 500 different rules. I’m a 100 percent believer in local control. But this throws the state out – except for commercial production.”

Dershowitz made this comparison: “The model used here is the dry county/wet county system. Long-term, as best practices develop [in courts], the state will take a more active role.”

Although not as common as it used to be, a legacy of alcohol Prohibition was that some some counties, mainly in the rural American South and Midwest, banned alcohol; while neighboring counties legalized it.

Workplace highs

A major point of contention was over how Prop. 19 would affect workplaces. “Impaired job performance is the only criterion” by which an employer could judge that an employee has been using marijuana, Hutchens said. “The burden is on the employer to prove impairment. It will be tested in time over labor law. Random testing for marijuana might not be permitted. You would get more rights as a marijuana smoker than a cigarette smoker has.”

Ackerman added that “It’s a failing of our labor laws. The Legislature is anti-business. Those labor laws are not going to change. SEIU is supported it.” SEIU is the Service Employees International Union. “This is not about legalization of marijuana. That’s very misleading. It’s a hit on business. It puts businesses in a bind. It makes pot-smoking a civil right, almost. You can smoke it in the workplace, unless you can show it impairs the worker’s ability to do the job. It would put people in a special class.”

“We’ll see this criticism from the California Chamber of Commerce: nitpicking and exaggerating,” Judge Gray said. He insisted that, for someone to be challenged at work for using marijuana, “It has to affect their job performance. If they smoked it Friday night, by Monday morning there’s no impairment,” so under Prop. 19, the worker could not be challenged in that example.

How to determine impairment? “That’s a problem that will exist whether or not 19 passes,” he said. “The purpose of 19 is to treat marijuana like alcohol.”

Dershowitz insisted, “It does not require employers to control employees’ off-the-job use. Only on-the-job. There are several ways it’s not a problem” in the workplace. “Four sections of the Act address the workplace condition.”

The hard stuff

Another objection to Prop. 19 is that, as Hutchens put it, “The marijuana of today has a much higher THC content than that of the 1960s.” THC is the active hallucinogenic chemical in marijuana.

Gray said, “The cardinal rule of prohibition: always sell the harder stuff. Law enforcement says marijuana is much stronger than in the 1960s. But the law makes no distinction between weaker and stronger marijuana. So you can’t find milder marijuana,” because pushers, facing equal punishment for potent or mild pot, choose the former. “If it were legalized, you wouldn’t automatically use the harder stuff.”

Ackerman contended that marijuana is a “gateway” drug, encouraging young people to try it first, then go on to harder drugs such as methamphetamine and heroin.

Gray said, “Today by our laws we are forcing people up a ladder. If they have any reason to believe they might be tested, then they are pushed to use something else. For example, marijuana stays in the system 30 days, methamphetamine three days.”

He also pointed to Holland, which legalized marijuana, and Portugal, which legalized all drugs, but have not seen pandemics of addiction. Hutchens countered that, “In Holland, they have more drug cartels than before.”

One thing they agreed on was asset forfeitures, by which law enforcement seizes the homes, cars and other property of a person accused of using marijuana or another drug, often even without a trial. Critics, such as the group Forfeiture Endangers American Rights, insist that asset forfeiture is abused by many law-enforcement agencies.

“Marijuana would just be excluded from that,” Ackerman said. Gray agreed, “It would address that indirectly, as Prop. 19 reduces the number of people making money,” and so subject to forfeitures. “Marijuana is the number one cash crop in California; number two is grapes.”

Teen tokers

For at least 40 years, the easiest place to get marijuana has been from a teenager. “It will make it less available for teenagers,” Dershowitz said, by maintaining penalties for selling to teenagers, while lifting them for adults; thus allowing law enforcement to re-direct its enforcement energies. “Now it’s easier than getting alcohol.”

“My concern is youth,” Hutchens countered. “I do not think it sends the right message to our children. We end up paying for it in one way or another.

Roll up for the voters’ decision

For Gray, Prop. 19 is “one of the most important changes of my lifetime – and yours. If and when Prop. 19 passes, it will sweep the nation. The federal government is absolutely agitated.”

“This is not the right proposition. It’s deceptively crafted. It makes a lot of allegations that aren’t true. The initiative allows you to grow marijuana in your yard,” Hutchens said.

“It should be outlawed,” concluded Ackerman. “Alcohol is good, drugs bad. I’m old fashioned.”

John Seiler, an editorial writer with The Orange County Register for 20 years, is a reporter and analyst for CalWatchDog.com. His email: writejohnseiler@gmail.com.