LEGALIZE MARIJUANA? AMMIANO MIGHT BE ON TO SOMETHING

Tom Ammiano is pushing a bill in the Assembly to legalize the
recreational use of marijuana in California.

It would be easy to dismiss this as an opportunistic move by a San
Francisco liberal to use the state's current budget crisis as the
gateway, so to speak, to legalize pot by proclaiming it could raise
billions of dollars in additional tax money every year.

An analysis predicts a $50 an ounce tax would generate $1.3 billion
year in new state taxes, drop its street value by 50 percent and
increase consumption by 40 percent. There are some people, though, who
argue Ammiano is all wet about the 40 percent jump in consumption
since pot is so readily available right now that they don't expect
much of a jump.

What Ammiano is proposing makes sense on several levels.

First, if we're worried about gateway drugs that destroy people's
lives and cost billions of dollars in future health care costs why do
we exclude alcohol and cigarettes from such labels? Consider the
chance of being killed or seriously maimed by someone who is drunk on
alcohol and driving and the financial costs associated with such an
accident. Yes, pot can intoxicate a user but given its widespread use
it is doubtful you'll see the number of driving under the influence
deaths skyrocket if it was legalized.

Our criminal justice system is overburdened. By decriminalizing
marijuana you ease some of the burden. I respect those in law
enforcement who would argue it is a bad idea because it "legalizes"
another intoxicant. However, the amount of energy devoted to marijuana
law enforcement has waned for obvious reasons - police have to
prioritize their resources. Citing for marijuana possession under an
ounce certainly isn't a sign of a zero tolerance policy.

Ammiano is proposing that those over 21 years of age be allowed to
grow, buy, sell, and possess marijuana.

Such a move should be matched by a requirement that anyone who grows
marijuana for sale must have a special state resale license. It should
also be treated like cigarettes and alcohol with even stiffer
consequences. The police should have the power to question anyone who
is selling marijuana and demand a copy of their license to do so. If
they don't have one, it should be mandatory on the first offense that
the state seizes all assets being used in the sale and transportation
of pot that is owned by the offender. That way compliance to the
licensing requirement should be a minimal problem. The license also
should be a nice healthy price tag like $1,000 a year.

Anyone caught supplying anyone under the age of 21 with pot - whether
they sell it or give it to them -should face a mandatory $1,000 fine
on their first conviction or asset seizure of equal value. The second
offense could be $10,000 with each offense there after $25,000.

Such measures would address concerns that marijuana would become to
easy to grow and therefore impossible to monitor for revenue
collection purposes. It would chill the proliferation of a black
market which, as it stands now, pretty much operates with impunity.

By giving law enforcement - read that revenuers or the state's
equivalent of the Internal Revenue Service - broad seizure powers you
will be able to substantially reduce the existing black market.

Ammino's proposal would be also more palatable if employers or others
who had to rely on people in positions of trust such as
volunteer-based non-profits were able to continue to fire anyone who
tests positive for marijuana use with impunity.

That may be a bit chilling given the fact marijuana leaves a residue
in the system but a nation that monkeys around with DNA and
replicating life certainly can create a test that offers enough
latitude to determine toxicity levels that reflect judgment and
coordination being impaired. Besides, if someone is worried about
being fired, then don't smoke marijuana before work, on the job or
during breaks. It would be no different than alcohol although
admittedly the standard would be a little tougher.

This country has a history of making vices legal to control and tax
them. Cigarettes and alcohol are prime examples while government takes
an active role in the promotion of gambling for its own benefit.

There is no dispute about how addictive behavior connected with any
vice can be destructive.

I have never smoked or used drugs. Once I had a taste of beer and that
was enough for me. As far as gambling, I got over any interest years
ago as you can't lose unless you play.

I have no problem with pot being legalized for those over 21 providing
it is heavily taxed including annual licenses for authorization to
grow and sell plus the penalties for violating the law being extremely
oppressive. You'd probably end up with a tighter control on marijuana
than we now have with it being illegal.

Besides, if trends in California are any indication, the more you tax
something like cigarettes, the more people stop using them.

From that angle, the best way to control the spread of marijuana is
to do the same thing the government does to stop the free spread of
entrepreneur behavior - tax it to death.