Pubdate: Mon, 25 Oct 2010
Source: Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA)
Copyright: 2010 The Press-Enterprise Company
Contact: http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/letters_form.html
Website: http://www.pe.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/830
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

TAX POT? UNLIKELY

Prop. 19 was a dubious proposition even before the federal government 
snuffed out one of the biggest arguments in the measure's favor last 
week. Comments from the Justice Department are yet more evidence that 
Prop. 19's promises are largely smoke -- and that voters should not inhale.

Prop. 19 on the Nov. 2 ballot proposes to legalize marijuana in 
California for those 21 years and older, and would let state and 
local governments regulate and tax the drug. Proponents say this step 
would save taxpayers money now spent policing marijuana, and would 
generate revenue for public services.

But that income stream is far from assured, as U.S. Attorney General 
Eric Holder made clear last week. Prop. 19 would change state law, 
but federal laws against marijuana cultivation and possession would 
still be in force. The attorney general condemned Prop. 19, and said 
the federal government will "vigorously enforce" federal marijuana 
law, no matter what state law allows.

That stance undercuts the argument that marijuana legalization would 
be an economic boon to government. The shadow of potential 
prosecution would hang over any attempt to collect taxes on 
marijuana. Pot growers may be comfortable with running that risk, but 
how many public officials will be? Is it realistic to expect to grab 
revenue from an activity that remains illegal under federal law?

Legalization advocates dismiss the idea of the federal government 
devoting the enormous resources necessary to enforce marijuana laws 
in California. The federal government has bigger issues to address, they argue.

But that thinking misses the point: Federal agents could still sweep 
in at any time and arrest those in the marijuana trade -- even if 
that enforcement is only periodic and haphazard. A legal cloud would 
still hang over marijuana, no matter what Prop. 19 promises. And that 
uncertainty would inhibit efforts to tax the drug.

The incentive of new revenue was already questionable anyway. 
Advocates pointed to a state Board of Equalization estimate from last 
year that a tax on marijuana could generate $1.4 billion a year. That 
figure, however, was for a different proposal in the Assembly, which 
went nowhere. The board last month said that Prop. 19 contained too 
many unknowns for analysts to provide any estimate of revenue. That 
matches the conclusion of RAND Corporation researchers earlier this year.

Prop. 19 raises a host of other troubling questions, from the 
practical hardship of conflicting state and federal laws to the 
potential use of marijuana in the workplace.

Many Californians have valid questions about the nation's current 
marijuana policy, certainly. But any change needs to come from the 
federal government, which controls drug policy, and not the states.

Prop. 19 gets that formula backward. That misjudgment is at the heart 
of the measure's flaws -- a lapse no amount of hazy promises can overcome. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake