Guardian UK: To save California, legalise pot

[marmar]

To save California, legalise pot
California's budget crisis may give marijuana legalisation efforts the momentum to finally pass


Steven Guess
guardian.co.uk, Monday 29 June 2009


As California stares at a $24bn shortfall in its budget, it would seem no solution is too crazy to consider. The problem has inspired the newly minted assemblyman Tom Ammiano to introduce a bill that would regulate marijuana like alcohol. This measure comes as a parallel ballot initiative is being considered for 2010, and senator Jim Webb has proposed a commission to study important criminal issues in Washington.

In normal times, the idea of legalising pot would never really be taken seriously, despite impressive facts, figures and logic. However, as protesters march outside of the Ronald Reagan building in Los Angeles in response to painful budget cuts to programmes supporting disabled people, the prospect of earning the state $1.3bn in revenue per year suddenly makes the idea more palatable. While taxing marijuana consumption would not fix all budget problems and would take time to begin earning revenue, going forward it would help keep many important programmes alive during future crisis for those who need them the most.

Americans' attitudes toward legalisation may be changing, with recent polls suggesting over half now favour of the idea. However, the problem is that these polls do not ask the most important people in Sacramento or Washington: the lobbyists. Important interest groups are already downplaying the proposal as an attempt to introduce "yet another" intoxicant into society.

Moreover, federal law still prohibits even the growing of marijuana for medical purposes, let alone a comprehensive decriminalisation programme, despite calls by state legislators to harmonise federal law with states like California. While exposure to federal criminal prosecution is less likely than at the state level, and President Barack Obama has in the past indicated a willingness to change federal policy on DEA raids, it nonetheless remains a serious obstacle to legalisation efforts at the state level. But Ammiano is convinced that the Obama administration will soften its position, and that a conflict in laws could encourage a healthy dialogue by exploiting the "fuzziness" between federal and state law. This venture would at a minimum reduce criminal liability for users, and in some cases the conflict of laws may serve as a defence that juries would consider in exercising their power of jury nullification. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/29/california-budget-marijuana-legalisation-tax

[msongs]

1. only if it could be grown at home for personal use w/NO gov't involvment nt

[mike_c]

2. that will be expressly illegal, just like home distilling, I'm certain...

...but I suspect enforcement will be pretty nonexistent except in cases where other crimes are being prosecuted. I mean, it's so EASY to cultivate primo bud. I'll tell you what, though, if the legislature legalizes marijuana, I'll buy a bag of fully taxed, state sanctioned bud AND a bottle of Anderson Valley champagne just because I've been waiting my whole life for the day! :smoke:

[bemildred]

3. If it's completely legal, you will get no money out of it.

They don't call it "weed" for nothing. But people do get completely ludicrous prices for fancy varieties, so the alcohol model is quite realistic. A regulated pot econony could produce quite a lot of money. People will still grow their own, but people brew their own beer too and anybody can make a still if they feel like it. If people can go to at store and buy good bud, they will be willing to pay way more than it costs to produce it.