Pubdate: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 Source: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA) Copyright: 2009 Los Angeles Newspaper Group Contact: http://www.dailybulletin.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/871 Author: Wes Woods II Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) LEGALIZATION ISSUE WON'T GO AWAY ANYTIME SOON No matter what anyone thinks about legalizing marijuana, the issue won't go away anytime soon. Proponents said the legalization of marijuana would be a boon to the state economy. The California Board of Equalization has estimated the state could see nearly $1.4 billion per year in extra revenue from legalization. But critics contend legalization would be prone to abuse and point to a growing number of younger patients. Roger Anderson, leader of the Rancho Cucamonga-based Inland Valley Drug Free Community Coalition, is one of those critics. He opposes legalization as well as taxing marijuana. "It's a slap in the face to youth, to our communities and to Californians," Anderson said. "We're fed up with this nonsense. We got fooled by Proposition 215, and we're not going to get fooled again." Prop 215 legalized marijuana for medical purposes in California. But the move toward legalization has recently picked up steam. In February, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, introduced a bill that would legalize and tax most uses of marijuana. Hearings are expected to be held later this year. Medicinal marijuana would not be taxed in the bill. Three Los Angeles City Council members in July proposed taxing medical marijuana at the city's more than 400 dispensaries. The legalization issue is worth acknowledging, said Kris Hermes, spokesman for a national medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access. "It creates legitimacy around the sale of medical marijuana and establishes it as a drug that sales can actually benefit Californians who aren't even patients," Hermes said. A television advertisement recently encouraged the drug's legalization and expressed how it could help the state's budget deficit. "The ad we just did was inspired by the immediacy of the budget crisis, like, 'Hey, this ought to be something people should be talking about; let's strike while the iron is hot,"' said Bruce Mirken, director of communication for the pro-marijuana group Marijuana Policy Project. The ad, which was paid for by the Marijuana Policy Project, focuses on a now-retired state worker who sustained multiple strokes that prompted her to use marijuana. "One relatively small ad campaign by itself does not get a law passed, but it keeps the issue on the front burner as we deal with everything," Mirken said. The Inland Valley Drug Free Community Coalition works to stop substance abuse through enforcement, treatment, prevention and education. The group works in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Nevertheless, Anderson said he is for the marijuana ad. "We love for that commercial to be played," he said. "It really shows the intent and purpose of the medical marijuana fraud in California. The true intent is to legalize marijuana through taxation. We say bring it on with the commercial. More important, even San Francisco area stations wouldn't play that commercial, which says a lot." The state in 2007 collected about $100 million in sales-tax revenue from hundreds of dispensaries for its general fund. Mirken contends the figure could be higher because there are thousands of people not mentioned in the report "growing and transporting marijuana and most are not getting their income reported because it's illegal." Anderson concedes taxing marijuana would help the state. "So would meth, heroin and ecstasy for high schoolers ... Where do we stop? This is a moral issue," he said. "And whatever taxes come in, they would be far outweighed by the health care costs." Psychological problems, depression and anxiety are side effects of marijuana usage and contribute to higher health care costs. Marijuana was also considered a cancerous drug under Proposition 65, Anderson said. There are several issues that need to be addressed when it comes to the legalization and taxation of marijuana, said Sandra Emerson, Cal Poly Pomona public administration professor. "Is there a large enough number of users to buy illegal recreational drugs and would it have an impact on revenues the state would be able to raise? ... I suspect there's billions of dollars in illegal transactions the government has not received revenue from so, on that note, yes," Emerson said. On another issue, she said, "We need to make the decision whether we think recreational marijuana in small quantities is something which is feasible and is consistent with our goals and agenda. If we say yes, and that makes sense, then we have to figure out how to tax it like alcohol and tobacco and stuff like that." There are two levels of taxing - sales tax and use tax, Emerson said. "The dilemma I'm struggling with is we allow people to buy alcoholic beverages, but there is no control on how much they buy and we use that money to help people through rehabilitation," Emerson said. "We do not want to get in the same box for recreational drugs. If we want this to be a revenue generator, hopefully, we won't solve one problem and create another." Another issue is if the taxation and legalization of the marijuana requires expensive monitoring, "They may find it more costly than they think. It's very costly to control the behavior of 15 million people," Emerson said. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom