TAX POT? UNLIKELY

Prop. 19 was a dubious proposition even before the federal government
snuffed out one of the biggest arguments in the measure's favor last
week. Comments from the Justice Department are yet more evidence that
Prop. 19's promises are largely smoke -- and that voters should not inhale.

Prop. 19 on the Nov. 2 ballot proposes to legalize marijuana in
California for those 21 years and older, and would let state and
local governments regulate and tax the drug. Proponents say this step
would save taxpayers money now spent policing marijuana, and would
generate revenue for public services.

But that income stream is far from assured, as U.S. Attorney General
Eric Holder made clear last week. Prop. 19 would change state law,
but federal laws against marijuana cultivation and possession would
still be in force. The attorney general condemned Prop. 19, and said
the federal government will "vigorously enforce" federal marijuana
law, no matter what state law allows.

That stance undercuts the argument that marijuana legalization would
be an economic boon to government. The shadow of potential
prosecution would hang over any attempt to collect taxes on
marijuana. Pot growers may be comfortable with running that risk, but
how many public officials will be? Is it realistic to expect to grab
revenue from an activity that remains illegal under federal law?

Legalization advocates dismiss the idea of the federal government
devoting the enormous resources necessary to enforce marijuana laws
in California. The federal government has bigger issues to address, they argue.

But that thinking misses the point: Federal agents could still sweep
in at any time and arrest those in the marijuana trade -- even if
that enforcement is only periodic and haphazard. A legal cloud would
still hang over marijuana, no matter what Prop. 19 promises. And that
uncertainty would inhibit efforts to tax the drug.

The incentive of new revenue was already questionable anyway.
Advocates pointed to a state Board of Equalization estimate from last
year that a tax on marijuana could generate $1.4 billion a year. That
figure, however, was for a different proposal in the Assembly, which
went nowhere. The board last month said that Prop. 19 contained too
many unknowns for analysts to provide any estimate of revenue. That
matches the conclusion of RAND Corporation researchers earlier this year.

Prop. 19 raises a host of other troubling questions, from the
practical hardship of conflicting state and federal laws to the
potential use of marijuana in the workplace.

Many Californians have valid questions about the nation's current
marijuana policy, certainly. But any change needs to come from the
federal government, which controls drug policy, and not the states.

Prop. 19 gets that formula backward. That misjudgment is at the heart
of the measure's flaws -- a lapse no amount of hazy promises can overcome.