POT DEBATE STILL GOING

No matter what anyone thinks about legalizing marijuana, the issue
won't go away anytime soon.

Proponents said the legalization of marijuana would be a boon to the
state economy. The California Board of Equalization has estimated the
state could see nearly $1.4 billion per year in extra revenue from
legalization.

But critics contend legalization would be prone to abuse and point to
a growing number of younger patients.

Roger Anderson, leader of the Rancho Cucamonga-based Inland Valley
Drug Free Community Coalition, is one of those critics. He opposes
legalization as well as taxing marijuana.

"It's a slap in the face to youth, to our communities and to
Californians," Anderson said. "We're fed up with this nonsense. We
got fooled by Proposition 215, and we're not going to get fooled again."

Prop 215 legalized marijuana for medical purposes in
California.

But the move toward legalization has recently picked up
steam.

In February, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, introduced a
bill that would legalize and tax most uses of marijuana. Hearings are
expected to be held later this year. Medicinal marijuana would not be
taxed in the bill.

Three Los Angeles City Council members in July proposed taxing medical
marijuana at the city's more than 400 dispensaries.

The legalization issue is worth acknowledging, said Kris Hermes,
spokesman for a national medical marijuana advocacy group Americans
for Safe Access.

"It creates legitimacy around the sale of medical marijuana and
establishes it as a drug that sales can actually benefit Californians
who aren't even patients," Hermes said.

A television advertisement recently encouraged the drug's legalization
and expressed how it could help the state's budget deficit.

"The ad we just did was inspired by the immediacy of the budget
crisis, like, 'Hey, this ought to be something people should be
talking about; let's strike while the iron is hot,"' said Bruce
Mirken, director of communication for the pro-marijuana group
Marijuana Policy Project.

The ad, which was paid for by the Marijuana Policy Project, focuses on
a now-retired state worker who sustained multiple strokes that
prompted her to use marijuana.

"One relatively small ad campaign by itself does not get a law passed,
but it keeps the issue on the front burner as we deal with
everything," Mirken said.

The Inland Valley Drug Free Community Coalition works to stop
substance abuse through enforcement, treatment, prevention and
education. The group works in San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

Nevertheless, Anderson said he is for the marijuana
ad.

"We love for that commercial to be played," he said. "It really shows
the intent and purpose of the medical marijuana fraud in California.
The true intent is to legalize marijuana through taxation. We say
bring it on with the commercial. More important, even San Francisco
area stations wouldn't play that commercial, which says a lot."

The state in 2007 collected about $100 million in sales-tax revenue
from hundreds of dispensaries for its general fund.

Mirken contends the figure could be higher because there are thousands
of people not mentioned in the report "growing and transporting
marijuana and most are not getting their income reported because it's
illegal."

Anderson concedes taxing marijuana would help the state.

"So would meth, heroin and ecstasy for high schoolers ... Where do we
stop? This is a moral issue," he said. "And whatever taxes come in,
they would be far outweighed by the health care costs."

Psychological problems, depression and anxiety are side effects of
marijuana usage and contribute to higher health care costs. Marijuana
was also considered a cancerous drug under Proposition 65, Anderson
said.

There are several issues that need to be addressed when it comes to
the legalization and taxation of marijuana, said Sandra Emerson, Cal
Poly Pomona public administration professor.

"Is there a large enough number of users to buy illegal recreational
drugs and would it have an impact on revenues the state would be able
to raise? ... I suspect there's billions of dollars in illegal
transactions the government has not received revenue from so, on that
note, yes," Emerson said.

On another issue, she said, "We need to make the decision whether we
think recreational marijuana in small quantities is something which is
feasible and is consistent with our goals and agenda. If we say yes,
and that makes sense, then we have to figure out how to tax it like
alcohol and tobacco and stuff like that."

There are two levels of taxing - sales tax and use tax, Emerson
said.

"The dilemma I'm struggling with is we allow people to buy alcoholic
beverages, but there is no control on how much they buy and we use
that money to help people through rehabilitation," Emerson said.

"We do not want to get in the same box for recreational drugs. If we
want this to be a revenue generator, hopefully, we won't solve one
problem and create another."

Another issue is if the taxation and legalization of the marijuana
requires expensive monitoring, "They may find it more costly than they
think. It's very costly to control the behavior of 15 million
people," Emerson said.