CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSED POT LAW'S PROBLEMS

We're not sure what California's cash-strapped government has been
smoking, but we hope to stay sober here in North Carolina.

California tax officials have issued a report estimating that state
government could net $1.4 billion by legalizing and taxing marijuana.
A bill introduced by San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano
would allow adults to legally grow, possess and sell marijuana.

There are a number of mistaken notions in the California plan, not the
least of which is legalizing a substance that is detrimental to its
users and the community. (Granted, plenty of detrimental substances,
from tobacco and alcohol to saturated fats, are already legal, so we
won't even go down that road.)

The first gap in California's reasoning is that the state plans to
charge a fee of $50 per ounce on pot, creating $990 million in
revenues, supplemented by another $392 million from state sales tax
collected. Trouble is, who is going to pay the tax?

Marijuana-sellers already have an intricate distribution network in
place. And in California, according to the Rand Drug Policy Research
Center, the cost of an ounce of marijuana is about $150.

Raising the price of an ounce of pot by at least 33 percent ? the $50
surcharge plus sales tax isn't likely to convince users to go legal.
They'll just outrun them revenooers and keep trafficking the drug
undercover to avoid the exorbitant taxes. Net gain to government
coffers, very little, if not zero.

"We find that very unlikely," that the state would bring in $1.4
billion in taxes, said Rosalie Pacula of the Rand Center. "If you try
to impose a tax that is that high, you have absolutely no incentive
for the black market to disappear. There is complete profit motive for
them to actually stay."

More smoke and mirrors in California's pot-legalization plan involve
the clause that prohibits the state from collecting taxes and fees on
marijuana until the U.S. legalizes the drug; and when is that likely
to happen?

So, an Ammiano spokesman says, the assemblymen will have to amend the
bill to remove that criteria. Sneaky, duuude.

If California or the United States want to conduct a discussion the
legalization of marijuana because the drug is ? proponents argue ? no
less damaging to individuals and society than, say, alcohol, that's
one thing.

But it's shabby for a government to decide that it will not only stop
enforcing a vice law ? but rather will start endorsing that vice ?
provided the state gets an ambitious cut.

And, in California's case, it's a share that even if the state,
however unlikely, is right about how much it will earn ? would barely
make a dent in California's $26 billion budget deficit.