REFOCUS WEED LEGALIZATION

The first of three initiatives to fully legalize marijuana use in
California went up in smoke on Jan. 15, 2010.

Written by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Assembly Bill 390 would have
legalized marijuana use and sales for adults 21 years or older and
imposed a $50 per ounce tax for drug education and rehabilitation.

Opponents of AB 390 cheered the failure as a victory for the safety
of our state's children, but proponents of the bill still intend to
bring the issue to the November election ballot.

I honestly could not be any happier that AB 390 has failed for now.
This would not be an unusual thing to say if I didn't ever smoke
pot, but that isn't the case. I enjoy pot; it's one of life's simple
pleasures. So why, am I happy to see AB 390 fail?

Because we don't need it. Pot already is legal in California, albeit
thinly veiled courtesy of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, also
known as Proposition 215. I fail to see why anyone would want
to pay an extra $50 per ounce toward a system that will likely
squander it under the guise of drug education and rehabilitation
programs, instead of going into the state's general fund where it
might actually be put toward for something useful. The medical
marijuana system has already been assaulted by the imposition of sales taxes.

Dennis Peron, one of the co-authors of Prop 215, drafted it with the
intention of making marijuana accessible to basically anyone. Anyone
that is 18 years or older can go see a doctor and get a medical
marijuana recommendation for pretty much anything.

Peron said the war on marijuana should have already ended when Prop
215 was passed by voters and shares my belief that Ammiano, who is
also a longtime friend of Peron, needs to refocus his efforts.

"It makes a great headline but doesn't give any real substantial
change to California," Peron said. "I think it's a bad idea because
you have to pay taxes. It's feeding the beast."

Aaron Smith, state policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project,
said AB 390 would protect the general public and medical marijuana
patients even more than existing laws.

"People who use marijuana and are healthy shouldn't have to go to
the doctor and come up with a bogus excuse to use it legally," Smith
said. "Most reasonable people would rather pay taxes than worry
about going to jail or losing their job."

But are we the people of California really so naive to believe the
federal government would respect the voters' choice legalizing
marijuana for recreational use when we have been endlessly fighting
the same battle for 13 years?

Despite the Obama administration's promise to not raid dispensaries
that are in full compliance with state and federal laws, that does
not mean the DEA's marijuana tolerance will extend into the realm of
recreation. A state appeals court is deliberating whether or not
dispensaries may be prohibited from operating by the cities in which
they seek to operate.

We should not bother creating new marijuana laws when we can not
even get our government to respect the ones that already exist - and
we certainly should not be rewarding our government with more money
to waste when it can't even pass a budget on time.

Until we can make our government respect the laws we voted for, AB
390 will only create a new set of controversial laws that are just
as likely to be challenged or ignored.

But Peron did have a suggestion for Ammiano.

"Tom would do better if he smoked pot," Peron said. "He's for us,
but he's not 'us,' and I've never minded telling him that to his
face ... Tom, smoke a joint, y'know so you get it."