WILL CALIFORNIA'S DEFICIT GO UP IN SMOKE?

It's been 90 years since America officially began the experiment with
prohibition.

On Jan. 16, 1920, the 18th Amendment prohibiting the "manufacture,
sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors," became the law of
the land.

That lasted almost 14 years until the 21st Amendment - which repealed
the 18th Amendment by giving the states the right to make their own
laws allowing or prohibiting alcohol - was ratified in December of
1933.

There are 27 Constitutional Amendments. Only the 18th has ever been
repealed in its entirety.

A special kind of logic is required when legislating controlled
substances. Alcohol consumption is legal if a person is 21. However,
if you consume too much, you can't do it in public without risking
arrest for public intoxication. Of course, consuming alcohol
compromises your judgment so determining when you consume too much
becomes proportionally difficult as you consume it.

You also can't drive your car after consuming alcohol and you
certainly can't have a bottle of it open in your car.

Obviously, people don't exactly consider alcohol consumption a great
idea for safe living. After all, no one regulates my Diet Coke. I
drink a lot of it every day in public and in private and rarely am I
in my car that I don't have one.

But alcohol sales will never again be prohibited. Too many tax dollars
and too many jobs depend on the industry. Sarah Palin - who led the
charge to keep some areas in Alaska alcohol free - has even been
persuaded to speak at the annual convention of the Wine and Liquor
Wholesalers of America in Las Vegas.

Legalizing alcohol leads to logical leaps for other controlled
substances. Is alcohol worse than marijuana? What about cocaine and
heroin? Couldn't jobs and tax revenues be gained by legalizing these
and restricting their use?

That's not as crazy as it sounds.

Certainly cocaine and heroin will never be used legally. They are far
too addictive and dangerous. But marijuana is on the table for
discussion and one state might just be ready to make the move to
legalize it.

In fact, a public safety committee in the California Legislature has
already approved a proposal to regulate and tax the legal sale of the
substance.

There are many issues to consider.

First, there is a difference in the two products. Alcohol can be
consumed for reasons other than to alter personal realities. Some
enjoy a glass of wine with dinner. Others cook with wine as an
ingredient. Some enjoy the taste of other alcoholic drinks such as
beer or a margarita. Sure, many people drink to get drunk. But that
isn't the only reason. I've never heard anyone say they enjoyed a
joint with fish and a hit from a bong with steak.

Also, it seems highly hypocritical to have the state encourage any
type of smoking when the tax on cigarettes has been sold to voters as
a means to encourage people to quit. Legalizing marijuana would
increase the number of smokers by expanding the number of legal
products available to smoke.

All of the medical reasons for trying to eliminate cigarette smoking
can't be overshadowed simply by the economic impact of increasing the
number of smokers paying taxes on their habits.

Prohibition certainly doesn't eliminate the use of banned products.
But legalizing a product would necessarily increase consumption.
People found a way to drink during prohibition, and people smoke
marijuana illegally now.

Legalizing alcohol greatly increased its use. The same pattern would
be noticed with marijuana.

California may be on the verge of bankruptcy, but you'd have to be
high to think this is a good way of balancing the budget.

Kent Bush is publisher of the Augusta Gazette in Augusta, Kan. Contact
him at publisher@augustagazette.com. This column is the opinion of the
writer and not of the newspaper.