STUDY CLOUDS ONGOING MARIJUANA DEBATE

A November ballot initiative to legalize marijuana and allow it to be
sold and taxed could drive down the pre-tax cost of the drug by as
much as 80 percent, according to researchers with RAND Corp.'s Drug
Policy Research Center.

The study lights up the marijuana debate anew but didn't surprise
those who have been closely watching the campaign to pass Proposition
19, which would allow adults 21 and over to possess up to an ounce of
marijuana and let individuals grow up to 25 square-feet of plants on
their property. The proposal would also ban smoking the substance in
public and around minors, and gives counties and cities the power to
decide whether to tax it or refuse it altogether.

Researchers estimate that the cost of high-grade marijuana could
plunge from $300 to $400 per ounce to $38, as growers would no longer
have to deal with the costs attributable to the risks of producing,
transporting and selling an illegal product.

Even with a $50 excise tax imposed on the drug, there could still be
an increase in consumption of 50 to 150 percent. Researchers also
think there may be a moderate rate of tax evasion.

If consumption doubled, marijuana use in California would be close to
the prevalence levels recorded in the late 1970s, the study notes. In
1978, the percentage of high-school seniors who said they used
marijuana in the past month was 37.1 percent, compared with 19.4
percent in 2008.

The report noted that a low price could also encourage tourism in the
state, increase the amount of marijuana transferred out of state,
reduce the smuggling of marijuana from Mexico and affect pot prices
throughout the country.

Nevertheless, they acknowledged that there are many unknown factors
that make it impossible to accurately estimate the effect on
consumption, the amount of tax revenue legalized marijuana could
generate or how much smuggling from Mexico would be disrupted.

"There is considerable uncertainty about the impact that legalizing
marijuana in California will have on consumption and public budgets,"
said Beau Kilmer, the study's lead author and a policy researcher at
RAND. "No government has legalized the production and distribution of
marijuana for general use, so there is little evidence on which to
base any predictions about how this might work in California."

Dale Gieringer, director of the California chapter of the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), said the study
"casts more smoke than light on the issue."

"It's hard to decide what's going to happen without knowing more
specifics," he said. "You can't predict what the federal response is
going to be and if demand will change.

"The most important lesson to be taken away (from this study) is that
the benefits of legalization depend strongly on how it is
implemented," he added. "Passing a bill or an initiative is therefore
just the first step in a lengthy process requiring many additional,
carefully considered policy decisions."

That the RAND study clouds what the impact of legalized marijuana
could mean for the state may make Proposition 19 harder to sell to
the voters. The Field Poll recently found that 48 percent of likely
voters oppose the measure and 44 percent support it.

"I think this only serves to show California voters that there's too
much uncertainty in the initiative, and they'll be more inclined to
vote no on it," said Roger Salazar, the spokesman for Public Safety
First, one of four opposition committees that are fighting the
initiative. "This study bears out how confusing the measure is in
terms of its potential impact on law enforcement, public safety and taxes."

Proponents of the Proposition 19 tout that taxation of cannabis could
generate $1.3 billion in state revenue, but researchers noted that it
was impossible to predict that figure because the initiative leaves
taxation to cities and counties.

Additionally, researchers calculate the cost of enforcing marijuana
laws in California at less than $300 million, slightly higher than
NORML's estimate of $200 million but well below the $1.9 billion of
other analysts.

Sheriff Bill Brown doesn't think it's worth the societal price. He
maintains that the marijuana of today is more potent and dangerous
than the pot of yesteryear, that it will lead to more people driving
under the influence, and that it is a "gateway" to harder drugs, such
as heroin and cocaine, and crime-causing in its effects.

The latest report touched on the gateway argument, concluding that
while there is a "correlation," there is no "causation" between
marijuana and harder drugs.

They also reported that it isn't possible to determine whether
increased marijuana use would lead to more drugged driving accidents.

Brown contended there are other ramifications of legalizing
marijuana, and he pointed out that it would mean California would
lose federal funds for violating the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988.

Dean Palius, executive director of the Valley Coalition to Promote
Drug Free Youth, said anything that makes marijuana more accessible
will lead to more drug problems among young people. "We have to admit
that as adults and parents, we've not done a good job controlling
access to alcohol," he said. "So why would I believe parents would do
a better job controlling access to marijuana?"

Kyle Kazan, a former police officer in Los Angeles County's Torrance
Police Department, supports proposition 19, and said criminalizing
marijuana use creates more problems than it prevents.

Kazan is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. The group
consists of current and former members of the law enforcement and
criminal justice communities who oppose current drug laws.

While he isn't in favor of drugs or condoning their use, Kazan
believes taxing marijuana will provide revenues for local and state
governments at a time when they really need the money. He also is
convinced that such a move would undermine the near monopoly Mexican
drug cartels and gang members have on marijuana sales.

"The question is: would you rather have a failed drug policy that has
gang members profiting from it and causing havoc, or would you rather
have cities and government agencies regulating and taxing it, so
jails can be freed up and more police officers can be put on the street?"