POT COULD BE GOLD FOR CALIFORNIA

The popular TV series "Weeds" is about a widowed suburban mother who
deals pot to preserve her family's cushy California dream. Not a few
Californians would like to see the theme writ large for their state.
California has legalized medical marijuana, its cannabis crop is
valued at $17 billion a year, and people there smoke pot openly. But
the state can't collect a penny of revenues from the enormous enterprise.

As California faced budget Armageddon, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
called for "a debate" on the potential of tapping marijuana as a
source of tax revenues. That's all he can do, because federal law
still criminalizes marijuana use.

Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron has already calculated the sort of
revenues California and other states could see were marijuana taxed
like cigarettes and alcohol. California's taxes would easily top $100
million a year.

But that's the least of it. Miron puts California's costs of enforcing
the marijuana ban -- policing, the courts, jail time -- at $981
million a year.

Nationally, legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion a year on
drug-war spending, according to Miron. And government could raise $6.2
billion annually in tax revenues.

A vain hope rose that President Obama's naming of Gil Kerlikowske as
drug czar would lead to a more rational and humane policy on drugs. As
Seattle's police chief, Kerlikowske oversaw the city's annual Hempfest
(a giant and mellow smoke-in) without bothering the celebrants.

But Kerlikowske announced this month that "marijuana is dangerous and
has no medicinal benefit." And to end any idea that the hip, liberal
Obama administration would ease up on pot, he added, "Legalization is
not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine."

Obama readily admits having used marijuana in his youth (in addition
to cocaine). And every year, many thousands of Americans are arrested
and their lives ruined for doing what he did. Does Obama get to be
president only because he wasn't caught?

Miron is a libertarian who sees all drug prohibition as interfering
with people's private lives. But he well understands the politics that
stop politicians from taking the no-brainer position on marijuana.

"Democrats know that the potheads are going to vote for them anyway,"
he told me, "and the people on the other side who care about this
stuff know that this is really a big deal." If marijuana were
legalized, and the sky didn't fall in, many drug laws would crack.

In previous economic downturns, state and local governments had turned
to casinos and other gambling for revenues. These tough times may push
legislators to ease their umbrage over additional "sinful" activities.

If they want to tax marijuana, they'll have to legalize it. But even
the lesser step of decriminalization -- whereby people may possess
marijuana but not sell it -- would save the billions spent going after
users.

Selling the public on expanded gambling and legalized marijuana
require different arguments. Casino gambling was already permitted in
Las Vegas and Atlantic City, so Americans were used to the idea when
other states started allowing it. And of course, there's a long
history of wagering at racetracks or church bingo games. Marijuana was
never part of the official culture.

Marijuana does have an advantage over gambling as a revenue source: It
doesn't compete with other taxed businesses. Casinos take
entertainment dollars away from restaurants, amusement parks and movie
theaters. Legal marijuana would take business away from foreign drug
gangs.

A bill to "tax and regulate" marijuana like alcohol now before the
California legislature has strong support. But it's not going anywhere
as long as "legalization" is not in Obama's vocabulary. The word
"hypocrisy" has apparently made the cut.