THE SENATE RACE AND MARIJUANA PROHIBITION

Odd, isn't it, that all the U.S. Senate candidates, and the people who
ask them questions trying to elicit their positions on issues people
care about, seem to have forgotten that in the last election, a
whopping 65 percent of the voters went for marijuana
decriminalization?

If that many voters care about the marijuana laws, why do these
candidates, who claim to have their fingers on the public pulse,
ignore the subject?

What happened in November of 2008 was decriminalization, meaning that
now, thanks to the voters, a small amount of pot can't get you
arrested and sucked into the criminal justice cybergulag. Decrim
curbed the excesses of enforcement, but didn't get at the underlying
situation.

The situation is that like it or not, marijuana has become
inextricably embedded in our culture. Despite wars against it since
Nixon was president, marijuana is ubiquitous and ineradicable.

Any candidate who doesn't accept that postulate has a duty to those 65
percent of the voters to please explain: how many more tax dollars
must be thrown at suppressing marijuana, for how many more years, to
make it go away? If you do not know or care, Mr. or Ms Candidate, have
the courage to admit it.

If you agree that marijuana is ubiquitous and ineradicable, you have a
duty to admit this truth, and hence to scrutinize the wisdom and
efficacy of prohibition, leading the search for a better way to curb
abuse, protect the public health and safety, and eliminate the crime
and violence associated with illicit trafficking.

Politicians report little "noise" on this issue, mistaking silence for
indifference, not fear. People are justifiably fearful about writing a
letter, showing up on a mailing list, even sending an email with the
"m" word in it. They have to be very careful about their jobs, their
drivers licenses and the kids in school whose parents will talk. But
put them in the privacy of a voting booth, and stand back!

The marijuana issue is simple: it is whether we should repeal
prohibition, federal and state, or perpetuate it. If we choose to
perpetuate it, the question is how we pay for it. A 2003 study from
Boston University indicates that enforcing marijuana prohibition costs
Massachusetts taxpayers over $120 million annually.

The case for repeal stands not only on the proven injustice and
inefficacy of the prohibition laws, but, more urgently, on their
obsolescence and unaffordability.

The 900-lb. gorilla in the corner for states is the question of
dollars. Early, crude numbers from California suggest $1.4 in new
annual revenue for that state. Adjust for population and that means
around $230 million for Massachusetts. And that's based on a tax of
only $50 per ounce. Since Massachusetts consumers pay many times that
figure, the tax could likely be doubled or tripled. And don't forget
all the jobs that will be created, and forests saved, when the hemp
industry is unshackled. Heck, maybe we won't need casinos!

Is it wise and prudent to ignore the revenue potential of a taxed,
regulated market in cannabis?

Upon arrival in Washington, our new senator will have an opportunity
to support Congressman Frank's decriminalization bill, or a bill
codifying the recent announcement by the Justice Department that it
won't be targeting sick people who use medical marijuana under state
law. Perhaps he or she will have the courage to lead the quest for
changes in federal law so that the Commonwealth and other states can
seize this new source of revenue and create new industries.

No living person is responsible for the marijuana prohibition laws.
They were conceived three generations ago in a cultural and racial
climate far different from our own, and very different from that to
which we aspire.

Are we ready for a serious, sober discussion about repeal, without the
usual winks, smirks and puns? Can we handle it? Will someone lead it?