TAX MARIJUANA ONLY IF IT'S FOR RECREATION

Long Beach's City Council will decide, probably next week, whether to
ask the voters if the city should tax medicinal marijuana collectives
- - and outlets selling recreational marijuana, should the state's
voters decide to legalize that use.

Of course, it's not quite that simple. It never is. For example, the
tax would be a business license fee because the city gets to keep all
of that, whereas a sales tax is split between the city, county and
state. It seems clear, though, that the consumer ultimately pays the
bill in all cases.

City officials are fairly straightforward about the motive for the
timing of this effort. A decision has to be made in November if the
city wants to capture tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales as
soon as possible, should that use be legalized. If the tax isn't in
place, it has to wait until the next election.

But it is easier to pass a tax on something that already exists, so
medicinal marijuana gets involved. And that's the rub, at least as far
as we're concerned.

Several council members attempted to differentiate between medicinal
and recreational marijuana during the first debate about the tax. It
appears likely that there would be a different, higher rate of
taxation on recreational marijuana versus medical marijuana - city
staff suggested 10% versus 5%, while Fourth District Councilman
Patrick O'Donnell (a teacher) went further, looking for 15%.

Those percentages would be charged on gross income. We're not sure how
the business license fee would be calculated the first year, but we're
getting ahead of ourselves.

Here's where it the moral argument comes in. Advocates of medical
marijuana argue that no taxes are charged currently on prescription
drugs, and medicinal marijuana currently is a prescription drug. Why
should marijuana be singled out?

The strongest argument is the one left unspoken - that for the
majority of users, the whole medicinal marijuana approach is simply a
smokescreen for people who want to get high without risk. The
documented ease with which many get prescriptions, and the number of
cooperatives in operation before Los Angeles and Long Beach (among
others) moved to regulate them, adds credence to this belief.

We believe that there are legitimate uses for marijuana as a medicine,
and plenty of people who benefit from its availability for that
purpose. Further, we believe that legitimate medicinal use should not
be taxed.

It follows that, according to the law, current marijuana cooperatives
should not be subject to an additional business license fee. The
proper approach to abuse of the law would be enforcement of the law -
strong oversight of prescription writers, etc., - not taxation of all
involved.

So does that leave the cash-strapped city looking for every potential
revenue source out of luck when it comes to marijuana? Hardly.

There is established precedent for ballot issues formatted in a "if
that happens, this will happen" structure. A prime example is the
concurrent vote on a recall and a replacement for the person being
recalled. "If Gray Davis is recalled as governor, I vote for Arnold
Schwarzenegger to replace him." If the Davis recall had been
unsuccessful, the votes for Schwarzenegger would not have meant anything.

We support the concept of taxing recreational marijuana, should it be
legalized, and we definitely support the effort of Long Beach to get
its fair share. That can be accomplished with a straightforward
if-then proposition, putting the process of taxing marijuana outlets
in place if, and only if, the voters legalize its use.

If the state proposition passes, we predict the state will lose little
time in passing a sales tax similar to that on alcohol or tobacco. It
makes sense for Long Beach to try to get at the head of the line.

We're not sure how medicinal marijuana will be differentiated from
recreational marijuana, should both become legal.

We're told that there would be a difference based on strains and
specific effects, so there still will be grounds for specific medical
use.

If that's the case, we still would oppose taxation of medicinal
marijuana. If you don't tax some prescription medicine, don't tax any
prescription medicine

Finally, it's important to be honest with the voters. Wouldn't it be
refreshing to see a ballot proposition that actually asks to do what
its proponents want to do?