RIGHT SHOULD BACK POT MEASURE

Legalization fits with a host of conservative principles.

California conservatives in November should support Proposition 19, a
ballot initiative that would remove criminal penalties for the possession,
cultivation and private use of marijuana by adults. And this support should
be based on core conservative principles such as free markets, limited
government and the rule of law.

The economic argument for legalization ought to be persuasive for most
clear-thinking conservatives. Simply put, the current prohibition of
cannabis has produced few if any social benefits while the costs of
prohibition have been outrageously expensive.

For example, Harvard economist Jeffery Miron has estimated that the total
private and public costs of cannabis prohibition in the U.S. are $13
billion annually. In California, Miron projects a roughly $2 billion cost
reduction associated with legalization and up to "several hundred million
dollars" in taxes on cannabis sales. (The State Board of Equalization
estimates the tax revenue at almost $1.5 billion annually.) Thus
legalization and regulation of cannabis would lower private and public
costs, decriminalize suppliers and consumers and help reduce California's
persistent deficit.

Legalization would also reduce drug violence (costs) and the power of the
drug cartels. Historically, cartel violence has only been associated with
products that the government makes illegal. After all, legitimate
businessmen don't usually shoot their competitors or threaten to harm
potential customers.

The most applicable and best example of this principle in the U.S. is the
passage of the federal Volstead Act, prohibiting alcohol sales and the
subsequent rise of the organized crime cartels in the 1920s and early
1930's. When Congress repealed alcohol prohibition in 1933, and the states
began to regulate alcohol distribution, the gang violence associated with
buying and selling booze fell, and the rule of law was restored.

Understandably, some critics of legalization hold that it is morally wrong
to legalize a product that can be abused, especially by the young. We find
this argument unconvincing, even ironic, because under prohibition the
marijuana market is totally unregulated, and consumers of any age have no
difficulty in obtaining supply. Not good.

Indeed, the proposed "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act" seeks to
bring a long-overdue rationality to the marijuana market by allowing local
governments to impose sensible regulations. It would, for example,
establish age restrictions on consumption (21 years) and also provide a
general overall framework for the drug's production, quality control and
distribution. The proposal would also impose restrictions on where and when
cannabis could be legally consumed. This framework for an orderly and safe
cannabis marketplace could actually be expected to mitigate much of the
social cost associated with the ineffectual prohibition regime.

Finally, conservatives should not accept the argument that a product must
remain illegal simply because it might possibly be abused. This argument is
specious at best (it would prohibit swimming pools and skiing) and leads
directly to the all-intrusive Nanny State, where federal bureaucrats
ultimately decide which products (or medications) are good for the
individual, even when their behavior is absent harms to others. Instead,
conservatives should always support individual and family responsibility in
product (and health care) choice and demand full accountability for those
choices.

Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley Jr. staunch conservatives with
impeccable credentials both strongly supported an end to the war on
marijuana. Prop. 19 is a sensible, common-sense step in the right direction.