REGULATION WOULD TAKE IT OUT OF CRIMINALS' CONTROL

What if California could raise hundreds of millions of dollars in new
revenue to preserve vital state services without any tax increase? And
what if at the same time, we could, without any new expense, help
protect our endangered wilderness areas while making it harder for our
kids to get drugs?

That is precisely what the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education
Act (AB390) that I recently introduced would do. The legislation is
the logical next step in California's and hopefully the nation's
public policy toward marijuana.

I introduced AB390 not only to address California's growing economic
crisis but, more importantly, to begin a rational public policy
discussion about how best to regulate the state's largest cash crop,
estimated to be worth roughly $14 billion annually. Placing marijuana
under the same regulatory system that now applies to alcohol
represents the natural evolution of California's laws and is in line
with recent polls indicating strong support for decriminalizing marijuana.

To understand the reasoning behind AB390, it is helpful to understand
how we got here. The state first prohibited marijuana in 1913. When
Congress later passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, marijuana
was temporarily labeled a "Schedule I substance" - an illegal drug
with no approved medical purposes.

But Congress acknowledged that it did not know enough about marijuana
to permanently classify it as Schedule I, so it created a presidential
commission to review the research. In 1972, the National Commission on
Marijuana and Drug Abuse advised Congress to remove criminal penalties
on the possession and nonprofit distribution of marijuana.

"Neither the marijuana user nor the drug itself can be said to
constitute a danger to public safety," concluded the commission, led
by then-Gov. Raymond Shafer of Pennsylvania. President Richard Nixon
and Congress ignored the report. Since then, more than 14 million
Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges and marijuana has
remained listed as a Schedule I substance - actually treated by
federal law as more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamine.

Here in California, enforcement costs for marijuana offenses had
become so high by 1975 that the Legislature decriminalized possession
of small quantities in the Moscone Act, saving the state $100 million
each year. In 1990, the California Research Advisory Panel urged
further decriminalization, noting that "an objective consideration of
marijuana shows that it is responsible for less damage to society and
the individual than are alcohol and cigarettes." By 1996, the
medicinal benefits of marijuana had been well documented and
California voters legalized the medical use of marijuana by passing
Proposition 215. Thirteen states across the nation have since followed
suit.

With U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announcing last week that the
federal government will end raids on marijuana dispensaries in
California and other states with medical marijuana laws, it is clear
that the tide is turning. Fact regarding marijuana is finally
overcoming fiction.

There may be disagreements about what direction to take, but it is
clear to everyone involved that our current approach is not working.
Regulation allows common-sense controls and takes the marijuana
industry out of the hands of unregulated criminals.

As a member of the state Assembly, I believe we must acknowledge
reality and bring innovative solutions to the issue of marijuana, not
simply wait for the federal government. This is how change happens.
Californians lead rather than follow, and we can set an example for
the nation as we did on medical marijuana by passing AB390.