SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 5679(10) OPPOSING PROPOSITION 19

Transcription

1 Lompoc City Council Agenda Item Date of City Council Meeting: October 19, 2010 TO: FROM: LAUREL M. BARCELONA, CITY ADMINISTRATOR TIMOTHY L. DABNEY, CHIEF OF POLICE SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 5679(10) OPPOSING PROPOSITION 19 Recommendation: That the City Council: Adopt Resolution No. 5679(10) stating the City of Lompoc s position opposing the passage of Proposition 19, also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, on the ballot for the November 2, 2010 California State Election. Background: At the City Council Meeting of August 3, 2010, Council requested staff agendize a resolution in opposition of Proposition 19. Therefore, Resolution No. 5679(10) is attached for Council s review and consideration. Discussion: Proposition 19 is an initiative that was placed on the November 2, 2010 State of California voting ballot by petition signatures. It legalizes marijuana under California law but not Federal law. It permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sales of marijuana. The complete description and text of the proposed law can be found at the following Secretary of State Web-page: Staff Considerations: The City of Lompoc, through various programs and Departments, including the efforts of the Lompoc Police Department, has taken a strong stance opposing the proliferation and use of illegal drugs, and substance abuse in our community. The Lompoc Police Department has been actively engaged in prevention and education regarding the perils and consequences of gateway substance abuse, be it alcohol or marijuana, for many years. The investment in our community s youth through the Every 15 Minutes, D.A.R.E. and G.R.E.A.T. programs, as well as the Lompoc Unified School District s Too Good For Drugs program have served to encourage young people to avoid the use of substances that would make them less productive members of our community and subject to the many pitfalls and criminal behavior associated with substance abuse. Significant research and documentation exists to support the fact that marijuana serves as a gateway to the use of stronger, more destructive substances such as opiates,

2 amphetamines, and cocaine based drugs. Nevertheless proponents of the use of marijuana have long had an agenda bent on its legalization regardless of destructive evidence seen in other cultures that have legalized its use. However, for the sake of this staff report, there is insufficient time to debate the destructiveness or benefits of marijuana itself. This report will focus on the inadequacies of the initiative before the voters. Proposition 19, The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 is poorly written and misleading. Proposition 19 lacks any substantive provisions to regulate the cultivation, processing, distribution or taxation of marijuana, but authorizes local jurisdictions to develop their own methods for regulation of marijuana. For the benefit of the City Council, I have included some of the various position statements explaining the negative impacts that Proposition 19 would have on the City of Lompoc. These position statements can be located on the No on propostion19 website: Proposition 19 Impact on Public Safety Page 2 Expressly omits any definition of what constitutes being "under the influence" of marijuana. Proponents did not include a standard for "driving under the influence," and there are no correlative tests between marijuana and driving skills as there are for alcohol. Therefore, a driver may legally drive even if a blood test shows they have marijuana in their system. States that you cannot use marijuana while driving, but makes it completely permissible to use marijuana just prior to getting behind the wheel. No driver over 21, including bus, taxi, light rail train operators, or everyday commuters can be required to be drug-free while operating a vehicle under Proposition 19. Prevents employers who operate transportation companies or have company vehicles from requiring employees operating these vehicles be drug free. Companies won't be able to take action against a "stoned" driver until after he or she has a wreck, not before, opening up a tremendous liability question for employers. Does not regulate marijuana like alcohol or tobacco. Rather, Proposition 19 leaves to cities and counties the task of individually regulating marijuana within their own borders. This approach will limit, not enhance, California's ability to control marijuana. Would not eliminate the need for illicit marijuana dealers, as a large segment of marijuana users are under the age of 21 and therefore will still not be able to legally purchase marijuana. Would place hundreds of employers, including public schools, at risk of violating the Federal Workplace Act of 1988 which mandates the necessity of a drug-free workplace, causing California as much as $9.4 billion in lost federal funding.

3 Page 3 Proposition 19 Impact on Education Would place hundreds of employers, including public schools, at risk of violating the Federal Workplace Act of 1988 which mandates the necessity of a drug-free workplace. This is why public school superintendent John Snavely, Ed.D. warns that Proposition 19 could cost our K-12 schools as much as $9.4 billion in lost federal funding as well as the loss of millions of dollars in federal grants for our state colleges and universities. If passed, would allow licensed marijuana dealers to advertise without restriction, near schools, libraries and parks, just like cigarette companies. This is made possible by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2001 entitled Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (US Sup. Ct., Opinion per O'Connor) which struck down as unconstitutional a Massachusetts statute which banned tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of a school or playground. Would forbid school bus drivers from smoking marijuana on schools grounds or while actually behind the wheel, but a bus driver could arrive for work with marijuana in his or her system, thereby placing hundreds of school children at risk on a daily basis. Proposition 19 Impact on Property Owners, Neighborhoods and Public Lands States, "that a lawful occupant, lawful resident or guest may cultivate cannabis on private property... The area of cultivation must not be more than twenty-five square feet per private residence." What proponents of Proposition 19 do not want you to know is what Steve Cooley, Los Angeles District Attorney, points out by saying, "the Act provides no framework for accomplishing these feats, but instead, delegates unfettered regulatory and enforcement responsibilities to local city and county governments." Does not limit the cultivation to "personal consumption" by the cultivator. As long as the cannabis is cultivated for someone's "personal consumption", it is not a public offense. (California District Attorneys Association) Would allow for the growing and processing of marijuana in the front yard or backyard of any residence in any neighborhood in any part of any California community, no matter how close that residence is to, for example, courthouses, police stations, schools or hospitals. (San Luis Obispo County District Attorney's Office) Defines a "residence" in very vague terms. "A 'residence' means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes." Using and applying the initiative's own blurry definition of a "residence" the California District Attorneys Association have concluded that "a person could pitch a tent or park a travel trailer on public property and cultivate, possess for processing, process, and possess tools for processing cannabis."

4 Page 4 Would allow each resident in a "dwelling" the ability to claim a 25 square feet plot for growth and cultivation. With additional occupants in a house, this would increase the allotted space beyond the standard 25 square foot plot. For example, four occupants of a home would be allowed to grow 100 contiguous square feet of marijuana. (San Luis Obispo County District Attorney's Office) Potentially removes enforcement on behalf of the land/property owner over whether or not the cultivation of marijuana can take place on his own land. Proposition 19 Impact on Property Owners, Neighborhoods and Public Lands The passage of Proposition 19 could result in employers losing public contracts and grants because they could no longer effectively enforce the drug-free workplace requirements outlined by the federal government. Would create a separate and higher standard for marijuana use beyond the current law, which allows employers to discipline employees who are "under the influence" of drugs or alcohol. Proposition 19 would require the employer to prove that the employee is "actually impaired" from performing his or her job duties as a result of drug use. Will not allow California employers to: "screen job applicants for marijuana use; regulate any employee conduct related to the use, transportation or cultivation of marijuana unless the employer can prove job impairment; or choose to maintain a drug-free workplace consistent with federal law", according to an analysis released by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office. Will force California employers that allow employees cigarette smoking breaks and/or certain areas in which cigarette smoking is allowed to also allow marijuana smoking as well. Would prohibit bus, trucking and transit companies from requiring employees to be drug-free. If passed, Proposition 19 promises to be a legal quagmire for California businesses, raising significant liability issues. Proposition 19 is opposed by law enforcement professionals throughout the State as well as the following professional organizations: California Police Chief s Association California Sheriff s Association California Narcotics Officer s Association California District Attorney s Association California Peace Officer s Association California Association of Counties California Chamber of Commerce Mothers Against Drunk Driving International Faith Based Coalition Association of California School Administrators National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance The League of California Cities

5 This is just a short list of the scores of organizations opposing Proposition 19. The complete list is over four pages long. Likewise many of our state and local elected leaders oppose Proposition 19, including the Governor, both Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, both U.S. Senators, as well as the Republican candidate for Senator, and both Republican and Democratic candidates for State Attorney General. Many other California cities have already provided resolutions in opposition of Proposition 19. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact to adopting Resolution No. 5679(10) opposing Proposition 19. However, should this proposition pass, it could have a significantly negative fiscal impact in the cost of developing local regulations and controls. Conclusion: Page 5 Proposition 19 is poorly constructed and deceptive to the public. Proposition 19 legalizes an arguably destructive substance and exposes the citizens, property owners, educators, and youth of Lompoc to jeopardy. TIMOTHY L. DABNEY Chief of Police Attachments: City of Lompoc Resolution No. 5679(10) APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL: LAUREL M. BARCELONA City Administrator