Move over 420, here comes 390

by Jim Washburn

Here's a follow-up to the article I wrote on marijuana the other week; you know, the one that was also about marijuana. It argued that the financial mess we're in begs us to look anew at the cost of the unwinnable drug war and to consider other solutions, such as appreciating that marijuana cultivation is one of the things America does best and legalizing the stuff. It's shovel-ready!

This week California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill, AB 390, which would legalize marijuana in the state, and would tax it in a manner akin to the way alcohol is now. Working from the estimate that marijuana cultivation is a $14 billion industry in California-far and above our largest cash crop-Ammiano figures California would reap at least $1 billion annually from the tax, while saving boodles in law enforcement and other expenses.  

Legalizing marijuana for its potential tax revenue would complete something of an addled full-circle on weed, since the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was the rubric used to first criminalize cannabis in the US. (It was found to be unconstitutional in the 1960s, but was then replaced by the Controlled Substances Act, thanks so much.) 

"I'm a martini guy myself, but I think it's time for the state to look at this in a truly deliberative fashion," Ammiano was quoted as saying in the LA Times, which also hosted a retort from Calvina Fey of Save Our Society From Drugs: "This would open another door in Pandora's box. Legalizing drugs like this would create a whole new set of costs for society." No word on whether Calvina's a martini gal or not.

Here's an imp Pandora probably didn't even know was in the box: If marijuana's legalized, that hurts the profitability of the workplace drug testing industry-motto: "Your urine is our urine"-which provides much of the funding for, gee, Save Our Society From Drugs, so you can see how that's a problem.

I don't expect we'll be changing our name to New Amsterdam any time soon. Along with it always being hard to shift the status quo on any issue-normalizing relations with Cuba, gay marriage, etc.--legalizing marijuana would raise a lot of specific issues that would need to be addressed. One is that marijuana is still federally prohibited. If that's surmountable, who would get to cultivate and vend this new taxable marijuana? Could you get it at Ralphs? At state-run weed shops similar to Utah's cheerless liquor stores? At Humboldt County tasting rooms? Will there be TV commercials for it and does that mean we'd be seeing a lot more of Woody Harrelson? Would you be able to grow your own? Would THC content be regulated?

Someone once noted that the LA Times editorial page is "always the first to boldly call for further study." They were lamer than that in their editorial today on AB 390. While admitting "it is almost beyond dispute that the federal laws are unjustified by science or common sense" and that "the many medical uses of marijuana are well-documented," they bemoaned that legalizing pot would "only widen the grey area" between state and federal laws, and that it would be wrong for the state to try to so nudge the feds into action.

The Times argued just the opposite when it came to California's legalization of gay marriage. I'm too lazy to check, but I believe that was also the case when it came to regulating greenhouse gasses, impose higher auto emissions standards and other matters. The states are often the laboratories where new ideas are tested before the feds get onboard. Also there is this: The truth begins wherever people are first willing to speak it.

Comments

Comments closed.