LEGALIZING CALIFORNIA'S CASH CROP WOULD PUT STATE IN THE GREEN

A New Bill Sanctioning Wholesale And Usage Of Marijuana Could Earn
$1.3 Billion In Annual Tax Revenu

STATE NEWS - Call it good timing, or just sheer opportunism: Last
Monday, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill
seeking to legalize marijuana use for individuals over age 21.

The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390) would tap
into an estimated $14 billion industry - leading to a potential $1.3
billion increase in annual tax revenue for the state of California and
an additional $50-per-ounce levy on retail sales. Although
controversial, the bill is a practical solution to California's budget
crisis.

In the aftermath of massive budget cuts and tax hikes, Ammiano's bill
would establish a wholesale market for marijuana, authorizing its sale
by licensed retailers. Past efforts to decriminalize the popular drug,
such as 1996's Proposition 215, which authorized medical use, pale in
comparison to Ammiano's bold proposal. If passed, his bill would make
California the first state in the country to legalize recreational
marijuana use.

It's no secret that cannabis is California's unofficial cash crop - a
covert, though common, Californian pastime. While the possession, sale
and consumption of marijuana for nonprescribed use is illegal,
statistics show that restrictions outlined by the law don't stop users.

According to the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health,
marijuana is by far the most frequently used illicit drug in the
United States, with around 3.3 million users in California alone.
Moreover, a 2006 U.S. Justice Department survey reported that 16.3
percent of college-age respondents said they had used the drug within
the last week that they were surveyed, most likely an underestimated
count of the true user population.

The cost of enforcement, however, is more alarming than the drug's
usage rates. The government spent about $41.8 million on law
enforcement for over 800,000 marijuana arrests in 2007, according to
FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The exorbitant cost only represents one
branch of the ongoing federal war on drugs, which costs tens of
billions of dollars every year in tax revenue. Although a moratorium
on drug enforcement altogether isn't feasible, it's time to reconsider
the costs and benefits of focusing efforts on such a commonly used
substance in the wake of economic disaster.

But where supporters of AB 390 see a lucrative opportunity, opponents
see Pandora's box.

Longtime opponents of marijuana legalization argue the substance is a
gateway drug leading to heavier substance abuse. However, many
studies, including one conducted by the American Psychiatric
Association in 2006, have shown that early marijuana use does not
correlate with the use of hard drugs among adults.

Another concern is that legalizing marijuana would increase its usage.
However, legalized recreational drug use in the Netherlands debunks
this logic. A 2004 study conducted at UC Santa Cruz comparing the
usage of marijuana in the United States to that of the Netherlands
examined trends in Amsterdam and San Francisco, where recreational use
is generally tolerated, and concluded that legal provisions and
sanctions had little relevance in promoting or preventing its use.

Statistics demonstrated similarities in the average age of marijuana
smokers at both the onset and height of their usage, and also revealed
that a majority of respondents from both cities had not used the drug
in the past week or even the past year before being surveyed,
suggesting its legal status didn't influence usage patterns in any
significant way. The similarity in trends between two countries with
vastly different drug policies definitely shows governmental drug
regulation doesn't change the number of pot smokers.

Controlling and taxing marijuana would go a long way in uprooting its
black-market trade and promote safe, legitimate entrepreneurship.
Furthermore, the current version of Ammiano's proposed bill calls for
a portion of tax revenue to fund drug-education programs.

By limiting the sale of marijuana to licensed retailers, consumers
would likely purchase the drug legally and forgo the risk of illegal
transactions, gradually putting small-time drug dealers and gangs out
of business.

As an extra boost to legalization efforts, U.S. Attorney General Eric
Holder hinted Feb. 25 that the Obama administration would stop federal
raids on legal cannabis clubs in California, reversing a trend in
marijuana regulation that peaked with the Bush administration's ban on
university-sponsored medical marijuana research.

Pres. Barack Obama, who admitted to drug use as a teenager, seeks to
lessen federal involvement in regulating drug use and instead delegate
the responsibility to individual states, making marijuana usage a
health issue, rather than a criminal one. Ammiano's recent bill
rightfully follows this trend, promoting the importance of individual
responsibility.

Ignoring the funds California might collect from increased tourism,
the projected marijuana tax would earn over $1 billion alone - a sum
roughly equal to the spending cuts for both of California's university
systems.

Why not require a percentage of this revenue to go toward education?
Investment in our college system should be of infinitely higher
priority than tampering with a relatively innocuous and private pastime.

Should California take the lead and approve this bill, it is possible
that other states would eventually follow suit and bring us closer to
the end of a costly and ineffective war both drugs and personal liberties.

Ammiano's proposal is a step in the right direction and comes when the
antiquated moral debate over marijuana isn't nearly as relevant as the
positive fiscal impact it would have on California's failing economy.