BACKERS OF POT INITIATIVE TARGET BENEFITS OF TAX REVENUE

Facing an uphill battle, proponents of a ballot measure to legalize
marijuana are mapping out a campaign stressing the millions of
dollars in tax revenue that pot could provide.

The initiative, sponsored by Oakland marijuana magnate Richard Lee,
would legitimize the sale of marijuana and allow pot shops to open
their doors in cities that permit it. Local authorities could also
decide how to tax and regulate marijuana sales, although it's unclear
if federal officials would tolerate such a bold and unprecedented move.

Many of the state's most important politicians want nothing to do
with the measure, which would allow anyone over the age of 21 to grow
or possess a drug considered by the federal government to be highly
addictive and of no medical value.

Despite lawmakers' reluctance, political consultants working on the
initiative claim a marijuana tax could contribute more than $1
billion toward reducing California's $20 billion budget deficit.
Opponents call that a pipe dream.

"As my wife says, that's just bong economics," said John Lovell, a
lobbyist who represents a coalition of law enforcement groups that
are against the measure.

In fact, there is uncertainty about how much tax revenue could be
generated, or if federal officials will even allow the legalization
of marijuana. According to the state Legislative Analyst's Office,
"The amount of all the various revenues that could be generated by
this measure depend considerably on the extent to which the federal
government enforces its laws against marijuana in California."

Last February, US Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice
Department would no longer raid medical marijuana dispensaries that
comply with state law.

However, his office has not indicated if it would tolerate marijuana
for people without a medical need.

A Republican political consultant predicted the issue would find
little support from politicians outside the Bay Area.

"My guess is most if not all Republicans will oppose it and some
Democrats will support it," said Ray McNally, a partner in the
Sacramento consulting firm McNally Temple & Associates. "Others
running for statewide office will probably hide under the bed."

Phone calls and emails to three gubernatorial candidates - Jerry
Brown, Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman - were not returned.

Four Democratic candidates for Attorney General, Kamala Harris, Chris
Kelly, Ted Lieu and Alberto Torrico, said they oppose the measure.
Republican Tom Harman said he opposes it. Five other GOP candidates
did not return phone calls seeking comment.

The 2010 campaign is better funded and organized than previous
attempts to decriminalize marijuana. Lee, founder of an Oakland
medical marijuana dispensary and Oaksterdam University, a marijuana
trade school, spent $1 million to gather 680,000 signatures calling
for the initiative to be placed on the November ballot.

The Secretary of State's office is now checking to see whether at
least 433,971 of those signatures - the minimum required for
placement - are valid.

Lee's corporate holding company, S.K. Seymour LLC, has also hired SCN
Strategies, a San Francisco political consulting firm that has worked
for Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Hillary Clinton's 2008
presidential campaign. Lee has also contracted with Blue State
Digital, an agency that has provided advocacy, fundraising and social
networking technology for the website TaxCannabis.org.

"This is not a whim," Dan Newman, a consultant with SCN Strategies,
said. "The initiative is carefully crafted, well-funded, and
professionally run. There will be TV ads, mail, sky writing -
whatever it takes to communicate with voters - and a very active and
engaged new media component."

Lovell, the lobbyist for the state Police Chiefs Association, the
Narcotics Officers Association and the Peace Officers Association,
said opponents saw some of the same arguments in 2008 in the battle
over handling non-violent drug offenses.

"We learned a couple of things from that," he said, "We did not have
to match the legalizers dollar for dollar in the campaign. They
outspent us five to one. But our message was before voters and it
resonated. That's why we succeeded."

Polls show Californians' attitudes about pot have softened since
medical marijuana dispensaries began opening in 2004. In the two
decades before that, - 35 percent in 1983. By 2004, the number had
crept up only slightly to 39 percent.

But the past five years have seen an enormous shift in popular
sentiment. In a Field Poll conducted in April 2009, 56 percent of
voters said they were in favor of legalizing marijuana for
recreational use and taxing its sale.

"When something changes I ask myself what happened, what events had
an impact on voter attitudes," said Mark DiCamillo, the director of
the Field Poll. "The biggest thing I can think of is Initiative 215,"
he said, referring to the ballot measure that legalized marijuana for
medical purposes and took effect in 2004. "It seems to have
moderated and taken away some of the public fears about marijuana."

Yet analysts and pollsters agreed the latest survey reflects only
moderate support.

"Fifty-six percent is a hard sell," McNally, the Republican
strategist, said. "You typically want to start out above 60 percent
or above. Because as a campaign unfolds, support typically drops.

"I think this goes down. I'm not sure everyone is ready to have head
shops all over the place," he said. "That's the other thing working
against this initiative - some people have the sense that things are
changing too fast. Like health care, it's too much, too soon. In that
kind of environment, do they really want to legalize marijuana?"

Steven Maviglio, the head of Forza Communications, a campaign firm in
Sacramento that works with Democrats, agreed that marijuana
supporters are facing an uphill battle. "They have to make it look
like mainstream California to appeal to moms and swing voters, not
just pot heads who want marijuana," he said.

On the other hand, he said, voters recognize that marijuana is a
multi-billion dollar crop, and it makes fiscal sense to regulate an
industry that isn't paying its fair share of taxes.

"There has been more enthusiasm for this than anything I've seen in a
long time," he said. I was sitting in on a focus group the other day
and people are voluntarily bringing this up," Maviglio said.