UTAHNS SHOULD WATCH CALIFORNIA MARIJUANA VOTE CAREFULLY

California is on the verge of legalizing marijuana for general use -
within certain age limits, of course. Debate on the subject is now
raging, but the measure will be on the November ballot in the Golden
State. Fourteen states, including California, already permit the
use of cannabis for medical purposes, mainly pain control.

The arguments for the general use of pot are simple: It would make
the state money, and it would save the state money. Legalizing
marijuana, supporters claim, would fatten the state's coffers by
applying a sales tax on the product when it is sold.

The more the drug is used legally, the argument goes, the more money
for the state, whereas illegal use makes the state not a penny. The
theory also says that the state would save money on law enforcement
costs. To enforce the law against illegal marijuana use now costs
the state millions of dollars annually. These savings would be
passed on to the state treasury. According to supporters, it all
makes perfect sense.

To many in California - a state drowning in debt, unable to pay
employees, without means for maintaining its vast infrastructure and
facing a ruinous reduction in its bond ratings - the money from
marijuana taxes looks promising.

Many supporters also believe that by legalizing the drug, the state
would undercut the Mexican drug cartels that supply a lot of the
state's illicit marijuana. By cutting off the big drug dealers,
supporters maintain, violence on both sides of the border with
Mexico would subside and California's law enforcement costs would be reduced.

And by legalizing the use of cannabis, a whole new industry would be
created for individuals and companies eager to enter the
marketplace. Thousands of new jobs would be available in the
production, marketing and distribution of legally packaged
marijuana. But, voters are assured, the smoking of pot would be
limited to a strictly "in home" practice. There would be
no marijuana "open park" such as in some European cities.

The case against legalizing marijuana is based upon medical, moral,
legal and economic objections. And opponents point to potential
unforeseen, or unintended, consequences to be faced in the future,
such as medical costs associated with caring for burned-out addicts.
As can be expected, emotions run high on both sides of the issue.
But all of us in states near California should be aware of what is
happening in our nation's most populous state because in the future
we might have to deal with some of the negative aspects of their experiment.

Economic arguments against legal marijuana follow this line: No one
knows for sure what the costs of enforcing the new law will be.
Opponents fear the state would be substituting the present costs of
fighting illegal use by creating another expensive bureaucracy to
control the legal use.

Moral arguments against legalizing pot are many and diverse, but
they all come down to the argument that a stoned society is not a
stable society. And because the country is fighting a battle against
the increasing use - and abuse - of "legal" addictive substances
such as prescription drugs, alcohol and myriad other products, why
add cannabis to that list?

Recent reports from states where pot is grown legally would indicate
they are having problems. An Associated Press story recently
reported that "Patients, growers and clinics are increasingly
falling victim to robberies, home invasions, shootings and even
murders at the hands of pot thieves. Critics say the heists
and holdups prove that marijuana and crime are inseparable."

Anyone who has fought addiction, or watched friends or family
members struggle with addiction, should be cautious about supporting
a law legalizing an addictive, destructive substance such as
marijuana, which when smoked, studies show, is 50 to 70 percent more
carcinogenic (cancer causing) than cigarettes.

Will the residents of California vote "no" to legal pot, or will
their motto be, "Raise the taxes!" We shall see.