MEDIA'S COVERAGE OF REPORT SPURS 'REEFER MADNESS'

The media's take-away message from the recent Rand Institute report
on regulating marijuana in California was this: Legalizing pot would
lead to a decline in price, followed by an increase in consumption.
Rand's actual conclusions, however, were far less newsworthy.

A careful reading of the Rand study finds that its authors were
uncertain of how significantly, or insignificantly, pot's retail
prices or consumption would be impacted by legalization. Under the
passage of Proposition 19 - the marijuana initiative before voters in
November - the most likely answer is: not much.

Let's be clear about what Proposition 19 would do. Its immediate
effect would be to end the practice of arresting and prosecuting
adults in California for the private use of a substance that is
objectively less harmful, to both the user and to society, than alcohol.

Doing so will unburden the courts, save millions in taxpayers'
dollars, and allow law enforcement to reallocate their resources to
focus on targeting more serious crimes.

The long-term effect of this initiative will be to allow communities
to explore policies to remove the commercial cultivation and
distribution of marijuana away from criminal entrepreneurs and into
the hands of licensed, regulated business people.

Doing so will create new jobs and new revenue. As a society we don't
tax and regulate alcohol because it's innocuous. We do so because we
recognize that booze temporarily alters mood and behavior and thus
should be regulated accordingly.

There's no reason why this same principle shouldn't also apply to
cannabis. Legalization, coupled with sensible regulations and age
restrictions, will limit youth access to pot and better protect public safety.

Would the advent of a legal market for cannabis production and sale
lower the product's cost to the consumer, as Rand predicts? Yes, but
likely not substantially. After all, cannabis has been legally sold
for medical purposes in California for well over a decade, but this
legality has caused only a minor decrease in the product's price.

Further, even after the passage of Proposition 19, producers and
sellers would still live under the threat of federal prosecution.
This "risk premium" will continue to artificially inflate the market
value of marijuana for the foreseeable future.

Finally, there will be new, ancillary costs under legalization - such
as sales tax, excise taxes, and increased overhead to pay for small
business liabilities such as insurance and employee benefits - that
would also keep prices elevated.

Rand's concern about skyrocketing consumption also appears specious.
Right now virtually anyone in California who wishes to obtain or
consume marijuana can do so already, and it is hard to believe that
adults who presently abstain from pot would no longer do so simply
because certain restrictions on its prohibition were lifted or
because its price fluctuated.

Finally, it ought to be noted that unlike alcohol, cannabis is
incapable of causing lethal overdose, is relatively nontoxic to
healthy cells and organs, and its use is not typically associated
with violent, aggressive, or reckless behavior. So then why are we so
worried about adults consuming it in the privacy of their own home?

Ultimately, however, quibbling over Rand's suppositions should not
cause us to lose sight of the big picture. California lawmakers
criminalized the possession and use of marijuana in 1913 - a full 24
years before the federal government enacted prohibition.

Yet, right now in California, the federal government reports that
approximately one out of 10 people annually consume about 1.2 million
pounds of marijuana. Self-evidently cannabis is here to stay.

Let's address this reality and stop conceding control of this market
to unregulated, untaxed criminal enterprises, and put it in the hands
of licensed businesses. Proposition 19 is a first step in this direction.