You’ve probably heard of Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, which will go before California voters on Tuesday. If passed, Proposition 19 would unburden the California criminal justice system while allowing the state to regulate the marijuana industry. On the other hand, it raises some concerns, like the possible boom of marijuana advertisements geared toward teens.

But what the board finds particularly troubling about Proposition 19 is its contradiction of federal law.

“Oh, come on, dude,” you might say. “Legalizing pot is so harmless!” Perhaps it is. But let’s conduct a thought experiment for a moment. Suppose a conservative state were debating a proposition that would make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion. Every Democrat in the country would be campaigning to put an end to the bill, and in all likelihood, the same people who are championing Proposition 19 would be on the streets calling the people of the conservative state traitors to America. Even social conservatives would likely argue that the better way to contest abortion would be to overturn Roe v. Wade, not contradict the ruling via a state law.

In the case of Proposition 19, the Attorney General made clear the Justice Department would “vigorously enforce” federal laws against marijuana even if the proposition passes.

The majority of the board supports legalizing marijuana, but some members, including supporters, feel the proposition is poorly crafted. According to its terms, employers cannot discriminate against workers who smoke, but they can reprimand poor performance that results from stoned employees. This led opponents of the bill to claim that a trucking company could not stop stoned drivers from getting behind the wheel until an accident occurred. The proposition’s vague language makes it difficult to determine if that’s true. Therefore, if Proposition 19 passes, the editorial board strongly supports the California legislature taking steps to clarify and standardize what could be a very sticky situation.

All we ask if that our classmates who choose to support the bill understand the full implications of their vote. This isn’t just about weed–it’s about federalism and the unknown ramifications of an ambiguous proposition.