TIME FOR A MARIJUANA SALES TAX

Californians spend about $981 million each year to enforce state and
local marijuana laws. What are these taxpayers getting for their
money? Not much, according to a recent study.

Jon B. Gettman, a senior fellow at George Mason University's School
of Public Policy, prepared the study, titled "Crimes of Indiscretion:
Marijuana Arrests in the United States," for the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

"Marijuana arrests," says Gettman, "are instruments of a
supply-reduction policy. But, he adds, "The doubling of marijuana
arrests in the 1990s has produced the opposite of the intended effect
in every major indicator. An increase in arrests should produce a
reduction in use and the availability of marijuana. However, during
the 1990s both use and availability of marijuana increased."

Marijuana possession arrests in the U.S. totaled 260,000 in 1990. By
2003, that figure topped 662,000.

Even failed public policies, however, can cost a bundle.

Who pays: Californians are, in effect, paying for Washington's
marijuana prohibition policies.

Boston University economics professor Jeffrey A. Miron estimates that
nationally, state and local officials spend about $5 billion per year
enforcing marijuana laws. California's share of this
multibillion-dollar handout to Uncle Sam includes $228 million for
police services, $682 million for judicial services and $71 million
for correctional services.

Individual costs: The thousands of people arrested on marijuana
possession charges in California each year -- especially teenagers --
pay extra. "Marijuana arrests," Gettman stresses, "make criminals out
of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Indeed, the primary consequence of
marijuana arrests is the introduction of hundreds of thousands of
young people into the criminal justice system."

Once a teenager has a criminal record, a number of other penalties
often follow. In California, for example, employers can ask job
applicants about arrests leading to a conviction, and a criminal
record may bar a person from public housing.

Taking a close look at marijuana arrest patterns, Gettman notes that
young people are disproportionately targeted. "The brunt of marijuana
law enforcement," he says, "falls on both adolescents and the
youngest adults -- on teenagers. Nationally, almost 17 percent of all
persons arrested for possession of marijuana were between 15 and 17
years old. Another 26 percent were age 18-20."

Marijuana use: And what do Californians get for these financial and
personal costs? In 2002, there were 47,988 marijuana possession
arrests in California compared to 37,246 such arrests in 1995. But
the number of users keeps going up. While 6.0 percent of California's
population was estimated to be monthly users in 1999, in 2002 the
estimate stood at 6.8 percent.

Nationally, monthly users went from 4.9 percent in 1999 to 6.2 percent in 2002.

The basic problem, says Gettman, is that "overall supply of marijuana
in the U.S. is far too diversified to be controlled by law enforcement."

If the current marijuana policies are both costly and ineffective,
what is the next best strategy? Because marijuana is so widely used,
Gettman recommends treating marijuana like a pharmaceutical product
subject to Federal Drug Administration testing and regulatory requirements.

By shifting to a policy that treats and taxes marijuana like tobacco
and alcohol, Californians could gain the following benefits: a
decrease in illegal activities surrounding drug sales; government
control of marijuana quality; better control of underage access to
marijuana; and the removal of the profit motive that attracts
sellers, including a substantial number of teenage sellers who most
frequently supply other teenagers.

On top of that, Miron estimates a marijuana sales tax would replace
the $981 million a year California taxpayers are now spending to
enforce unenforceable laws, with a new revenue pipeline bringing in
$96 million a year.