EFFORTS TO LEGALIZE POT MEET STIFF RESISTANCE

The debate over marijuana could get hotter in the Inland region.

As local governments throughout Riverside and San Bernardino counties
continue pondering how to regulate medical-marijuana dispensaries,
groups of San Francisco Bay Area activists are seeking to legalize
the drug for all uses in California.

The move, supporters say, would save money in reduced law-enforcement
costs and allow the state to tax marijuana and collect more than $1
billion in revenue.

"Once folks become better informed about how marijuana affects
people, about the truths, I think they will be less opposed to the
idea," said Scott Bledsoe, of Crestline, who sued San Bernardino
County for balking at issuing medical-marijuana identification cards.

But not everyone is excited about the prospect of legalized pot. Law
enforcement officials oppose the plan, as do many local elected
leaders. And even if marijuana were legalized in California, federal
law still would prohibit its possession and use, although it remains
unclear how aggressively authorities would enforce those laws.

"The recreational use of marijuana; I am not sure it is something the
government should be encouraging," San Bernardino County Supervisor
Brad Mitzelfelt said. "Smoking any substance can be harmful to people's lungs."

In July, Oakland became the first American city to tax
medical-marijuana sales. Officials said the tax should earn the city
about $1 million annually.

Beyond Medicine

California voters soon could be asked to legalize and tax the drug
for more than just medical uses.

Last week, supporters of one of two proposed marijuana legalization
ballot measures were cleared to begin gathering signatures to put the
measure on the November 2010 ballot. They have until Feb. 5 to
collect almost 434,000 valid voter signatures.

A similar proposal is scheduled to begin the process later this month.

Besides decriminalizing the sale and distribution of marijuana, the
initiatives would let the Legislature tax the crop.

It would mark the latest attempt by activists to legalize the drug in
California. The first came in 1972, when 66 percent of voters
rejected Prop. 19, according to the UC Hastings College of Law, which
maintains a database of all California propositions since 1911.

In 1996, voters approved the drug's use for medical purposes with Prop. 215.

Joe Rogoway, a criminal-defense attorney who helped write one of the
new initiatives, said it would reduce crime, save money for law
enforcement and raise much-needed revenue for the state.

"This is a crime-reduction issue," said Rogoway, who practices in the
San Francisco area. "If it's legalized, the black market would
disappear. As we know from what happened during Prohibition, the ban
of marijuana gives rise to organized crime." Alcohol was banned
during Prohibition.

Revenue for State

The state Board of Equalization estimated that legalizing marijuana
and imposing a $50-per-ounce levy on the drug's retail sales,
combined with regular sales taxes, could generate $1.4 billion per
year in revenue for the state. The analysis was part of a review of a
bill to decriminalize marijuana.

The measure would reduce law-enforcement spending by $981 million,
Rogoway said, citing an estimate by the Marijuana Policy Project,
which supports legalization.

The idea could find voter support. A Field Poll survey in late April
found that 56 percent of California voters back legalizing marijuana
and taxing the proceeds.

Lanny Swerdlow, a nurse and activist who opened a medical-marijuana
clinic in Riverside last year, said he believes support is growing in
the Inland area.

"Not only do I think California needs to have this debate, the entire
nation needs to have this debate," he said.

But the initiative is certain to face strong opposition from
law-enforcement groups, which contend legal marijuana is a gateway
drug to other illegal narcotics. And there has been strong resistance
to medical marijuana among officials in Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

John Lovell, a lobbyist for law-enforcement groups, said he thinks
the Field Poll survey overstated public support for legalizing marijuana.

"I think once the public understands that there's no earthly reason
to make another mind-altering substance, particularly one that's
carcinogenic, more available to people," a marijuana-legalization
initiative would lose handily, Lovell said.

San Bernardino County sheriff's Lt. Rick Ells said legalizing another
"intoxicant is probably a bad idea."

"The fact is we almost have pseudo-legalization with the
medical-marijuana program," Ells said. "It seems almost anyone who
wants a physician's recommendation can get one."

Potential Problems

The drug's entire legalization could present a host of problems,
including crime and the potential that the drug could be improperly
marketed to children, Ells said.

He said medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles have already
seen armed robberies.

Meanwhile, many Inland cities have banned or imposed moratoriums on
medical-marijuana dispensaries. Most recently, San Bernardino County
instituted a one-year moratorium on dispensaries in unincorporated
areas as supervisors decide how to regulate them.

Earlier, San Bernardino County challenged the state over the
requirement that it issue medical-marijuana identification cards,
arguing that federal drug laws supersede state rules.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear San Bernardino County's legal
challenge, which has been upheld by lower court rulings. For more
than three years, San Bernardino and San Diego counties challenged
the state law.

If marijuana activists succeed in getting the latest measure passed,
it would still run up against federal laws banning the commercial
sale and distribution of marijuana.

How federal authorities would react is uncertain. California voters'
approval of medical-marijuana use in 1996 led to federal raids on
dispensaries, but U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has since told
authorities to back off.

Mitzelfelt said users still would put themselves at risk with federal
authorities.

"There will be casualties," he said. "Those will be people who will
be in violation of federal law because they believe they are
protected by contrary state law. A lot of people will be arrested and
prosecuted. That is not the way to go about lawmaking."

Mitzelfelt said he doesn't buy the argument about legalizing and
taxing marijuana. Typically, government taxes a substance, such as
tobacco, to discourage its use, he said.

"I am loath to use my position as an elected official to enable
people to violate federal law and advance the cause of legalizing pot
for recreational use," Mitzelfelt wrote in a recent opinion piece
published on his campaign blog.