REGULATE MARIJUANA LIKE WINE

In my public discussions about our nation's failed and hopeless
policy of marijuana prohibition, I often say that Proposition 19
actually won the election last November, but we will simply be
delaying implementation for two years.

I say that for two reasons. First, Proposition 19 was so successful
in legitimizing the discussion about the failure of marijuana
prohibition both statewide and nationwide, and even worldwide, that
people for the first time have actually started to think seriously
about the issue. And that is really all we need, because what we are
doing today simply doesn't make sense.

Second, in some of my debates on Proposition 19, numbers of people,
including several chiefs of police, stated publicly that they had no
problem treating marijuana like alcohol, but they did not like some
specific provisions of Proposition 19 and therefore opposed it. Many
voters felt exactly the same way.

So since November, quite a few people involved in marijuana drug law
reform have been working to craft a new initiative, the Regulate
Marijuana like Wine Act of 2012, and its basic provisions are as follows:

All California laws that prohibit marijuana possession, use, sales,
distribution, cultivation, etc. by people who are 21 and older would
be repealed, except for those pertaining to driving a motor vehicle
under the influence of marijuana; using or being impaired by
marijuana in public or in the workplace; the use, possession, sales,
etc. of marijuana by people younger than 21; providing, transferring
or selling marijuana to a person younger than 21; or any laws or
regulations regarding medical marijuana as set forth by Proposition
215 and its related statutes. All of those laws and regulations would
expressly remain in effect.

The proposal then breaks down what we now call marijuana into two
classifications. The first is marijuana with a THC or "potency" level
of 3% or higher, which would be governed by regulations, taxes and
fees that use the wine industry as a model. But, importantly enough,
the act would not permit state, county or city governments to use
their taxing, zoning or licensing authority as a means to thwart the
provisions of the initiative, unless those regulations would also be
applicable to the wine industry.

Marijuana with a THC level of less than 3%. would be classified as
hemp, and would be governed by the same regulations, taxes and fees
that use the cotton industry as a model. Of course the hemp industry
goes back thousands of years, such that in ancient Greek the word for
"canvas" was the same word as "cannabis," or marijuana. Similarly,
the plantations owned by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and many
other planters grew large crops of hemp, which were used for things
like rope, gunny sacks and coarse cloth.

Since the colonial period the uses of hemp have been greatly
expanded. For example, today manufacturers can get four times the
amount of paper pulp from an acre of hemp as they can from an acre of
trees. Furthermore, the hemp crop can be raised in one season of
about eight months, while it takes about 20 years to grow the trees.
This means that the paper pulp industry in the northwest United
States could be reclaimed, along with all of the jobs, revenues and
taxes that this would entail.

The proposal would also prohibit all commercial advertising of the
sales, distribution and use of marijuana, except for medical
marijuana and products made from industrial hemp. This would go a
long way in taking the glamour out of marijuana, especially for children.

After Holland decriminalized marijuana back in the 1970s, its
minister of health stated that they had only half the marijuana usage
per capita in their country as we do in ours - for both adults and
for teenagers! And he went on to explain why by saying that "we have
succeeded in making pot boring." A system in which marijuana is no
longer sold illegally and also is not advertised commercially will
achieve the same results.

Another main purpose of the initiative would be to deprive Mexican
drug cartels, juvenile street gangs and other thugs of large amounts
of money, while at the same time providing significant amounts of tax
revenues to city, county and state governments to use for things like
fixing potholes and educating children.

In addition, many medical and legal professionals believe that in
many ways marijuana is actually less harmful than my drug of choice,
alcohol. So if adults choose to use marijuana instead of alcohol, the
governments, as a matter of freedom and liberty, should not be able
to prohibit them from doing so.

Yes, the use, possession, growing and sale of marijuana and hemp
would still be illegal under federal law, and the proposal recognizes
that fact. But if the federal government still wants to enforce its
laws of marijuana prohibition it will be forced to do so alone,
because the proposal would prohibit anyone working for or contracting
with any of our state, county or city governments from cooperating
with any such investigations, prosecutions, punishments or
forfeitures, as long as the subjects were acting within the
provisions of the proposal.