MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION: A WINDFALL OR SMOKESCREEN FOR EASING STATE'S
FISCAL WOES?

Marijuana legalization advocates have, apparently, collected enough
signatures to qualify their initiative (No. 1377) for the November
ballot. The measure proposes to "legalize (nonmedicinal) marijuana
and tax it," as if that will solve California's fiscal problems.

This claim was somewhat legitimized when the California Board of
Equalization estimated that the annual revenue gained from a
marijuana sales tax would be $1.4 billion. The state director of
finance places the savings in the tens of millions of dollars, but
concerned citizens need to ask how those figures were derived and if
they reflect the true cost.

In 2006, Jon Gettman, the former National Director for NORMAL
(National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), and
longtime contributor to High Times magazine, published an article
entitled "Marijuana Production in the United States."

If one looks at the facts available to Gettman, you will see that his
numbers were inflated, which, obviously, skewed his overall findings.
Unfortunately, the Board of Equalization relied on Gettman's analysis.

Dr. Rosalie Pacula from the RAND Corp. conducted a cost-benefit
analysis on the same topic and discredited the Board of
Equalization's findings. Yet, Dr. Pacula's information is often ignored.

An area sometimes overlooked in the legalization debate pertains to
the social and economic costs to society. A 2009 study by the
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University, found that for every $1 gained in tax revenue on alcohol
and tobacco, society pays $8.95 in social costs.

The legalization of recreational marijuana will remove sanctions and
the stigma of criminal activity, which will only encourage much
greater use of a dangerous, addictive, and highly potent drug, will
cost taxpayers far more than any tax could possibly recover.

Proponents of legalization claim that smoking marijuana is not as bad
for you as consuming alcohol. The truth is marijuana is addictive and
marijuana smoke does cause cancer.

In a June 2009 hearing, the California Carcinogen Identification
Committee (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) reported
that smoking marijuana deposited four times the amount of tar than
that from tobacco. Further, "marijuana smoke contained 33 of the same
carcinogenic constituents as found in tobacco smoke."

Based on this hearing, the OEHHA concluded that marijuana smoke
caused cancer. If that were not bad enough, a recent Australian study
found that young people who smoke marijuana for six years or more are
twice as likely to have psychotic episodes as nonsmokers. An earlier
British study indicates the chances for psychosis are considerably
higher when concentrated forms of the drug are used.

Marijuana smoking also has devastating effects on our safety on the
roads. It is the most frequently detected psychoactive substance
among driving populations.

Many in our community still remember the terrible crash that took
place in December 2007. California Highway Patrol Officer Anthony
Pedeferri had stopped 21-year-old Andreas Parra for a traffic
violation when another vehicle driven by Jeremy White suddenly
collided into Parra's vehicle, causing a fiery crash.

Parra was killed and Pedeferri critically injured. For his part in
this accident, White, who was under the influence of marijuana when
the accident occurred and had purchased marijuana from a dispensary
in the Los Angeles area, pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the
accident, and was eventually sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Proponents want you to believe that marijuana is harmless, but talk
to any law enforcement officer and they can tell you about the lives
that have been destroyed by long-term marijuana use.

The proponents of this measure want you to believe that legalization
of marijuana will be good for our economy without hurting our
society. How would the Pedeferri, Parra and White families respond?
How would the many families whose children are addicted to marijuana
and other drugs respond to this question? How would parents, who are
desperately trying to keep their children away from drugs, respond?

The real question is whether you will buy the "smoke"-and-mirrors
argument of increased tax revenue over proven history of human
suffering and known social and health costs when you vote in November.