Today's LA Times on Legalizing Marijuana: A Wrong Turn

[CaliforniaPeggy]

Marijuana advocates are cheering the Assembly's Public Safety Committee for voting out a measure Tuesday designed to legalize, tax and regulate the sale of the drug to adults 21 and over. The bill is being marketed as a revenue raiser; the Board of Equalization estimates that the state could reap up to $1.3 billion in sorely needed tax revenue, and proponents have skillfully wielded the budget crisis to boost support for the measure.

Polls show that 56% of Californians back legalizing marijuana. Across the country, the numbers are somewhat lower, but nevertheless momentum is building for a reconsideration of marijuana laws covering both medicinal and recreational use. Many states now treat marijuana offenses as mere infractions, not subject to jail time. The American Medical Assn. recently reversed its long-held position and urged more research into the drug's properties.

Still, for California to purport to legalize marijuana unilaterally raises several serious concerns. For one thing, to do so simply because the state faces a budget crisis would be a rash and reckless way to make public policy. More important, California does not have the authority to take such a step. Cannabis may be the nation's largest cash crop, but marijuana remains a Schedule I drug, deemed by the federal government to have a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical value and illegal to use under all circumstances. Perhaps Californians have been emboldened by their pioneering role in legalizing medicinal marijuana, but in truth, the conflict between state and federal law has had serious consequences for users and distributors caught in the federal web. Yes, the Obama administration now has a formal policy of ignoring medical marijuana activity in states that have passed laws permitting its use, and the Justice Department has halted raids on dispensaries and prosecutions of sick patients. But that is merely a truce. Widespread legalization for recreational purposes is almost guaranteed to upset the delicate detente with Washington.

AB 390, sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), would not be an appropriate first step for California. It's true that a $50-per-ounce fee is included in the bill that would go to anti-drug programs. But that's not enough. The state needs a thorough airing of the pros and cons of legalization and the pitfalls related to abuse of the drug before taking such dramatic action. We welcome a debate over legalizing marijuana, but we do not support this bill.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-marijuana13-2010jan13,0,6346714.story

[endless october]

1. pot prohibition failed.

legalize.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. That's it ...

[tridim]

8. Unfortunately it's still a cash cow for the drug warriors.

I don't know how that can be changed without federal rescheduling.

I'm pretty sure that'll happen after 2012, but until then pot prohibition will remain more profitable than the taxes a state can collect.

[glen123098]

3. Anyone who says marijuana should be illegal...

Should also say alcohol and even caffeine should be illegal for consistency. Both of those drugs are more dangerous than marijuana. I don't see the paper calling for prohibition, so I see it as hypocritical.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. Yup.

We already tried making alcohol illegal, and we know how well that turned out...

Hypocrites, indeed.

Thank you!

[tridim]

4. There are no cons to legalizing a substance that is non-toxic.

And there are certainly no cons to legalizing a substance that millions of normally law-abiding citizens already use despite the law. Laws are supposed to reflect the will of the people in this country, not corporations and politicians.

State legalization and Federal rescheduling is a no-brainer. Just say "yes".

[Ganja Ninja]

6. Millions of people are already smoking pot.

Keeping pot illegal won't change that. Legalizing it will remove the criminal element from the sales of Marijuana and reduce the exposure of pot smokers to illegal drug dealers and the other more harmful drugs they sell.

[gcomeau]

7. Excellent point!

Cannabis may be the nation's largest cash crop, but marijuana remains a Schedule I drug...

...something really should be done about that idiotic classification.

[county worker]

9. I think we have been debating legalizing pot for several decades.

What new things can be said? Any drug can be abused including legal medications both over the counter and prescription and alcohol. I see no rational reason to keep pot illegal other than people are making money because it is illegal.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. True, the debate is not new.

Now, however, with the budget crisis in California, and with more people viewing pot as not a criminal activity, the talk has become more wide-spread about legalizing it.

I suspect that the tax revenues that would come in from legalizing it would far outstrip any money made off prosecuting those who currently use or grow, and then get caught.

[county worker]

12. The tax revenues will not go into the pockets of the leaders in the war on drugs.

That is the reason there is opposition to legalizing it.

[Gman2]

11. Sounds just like the article I wrote, and was lambasted for.

They too mention the nasty remnants of laws that will do major harm to people, if we dont get them aligned first. I was called every bad word in the book.

Yes on legalization, no on work drug test firing. No on serious crime for traffic accidents. Etc. Legalization is not for dudes, it is serious business.