timiscute

Bill to legalize, tax marijuana in California gets a hearing
10/29/09 | The Sacramento Bee | Jim Sanders

Legislation to make California the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational use lit up a Capitol committee hearing Wednesday with three hours of lively but mellow debate.

No joint consensus was reached.

Dozens of people crammed into the Assembly Public Safety Committee session to discuss potential impacts of the proposal to allow pot to be taxed and sold openly to adults 21 and older.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat who proposed the measure, Assembly Bill 390, contends it could generate much-needed revenue and free peace officers to focus on worse crimes.

"Prohibition results in chaos, which is pretty much the situation we have now," Ammiano said shortly before the hearing.

But John Standish, president of the California Peace Officers' Association, testified that approving public pot use could exacerbate problems from illnesses to absenteeism.

"There is no way marijuana could protect and promote our society," he said. "In fact, it radically diminishes it."

Phillip Smith, 55, described himself as a pot smoker who otherwise abides by the law.

"All I want is to be left alone," he said.

Medical marijuana use already is legal in California, but not recreational use. More than 78,500 people were arrested in 2008 on pot-related offenses, state records show.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken no position on AB 390.

"He opposes the legalization of marijuana, but he believes we should have a robust debate on the issue, not only in fiscal terms but also with regard to health care and public safety," spokesman Aaron McLear said.

Marijuana supporters, law enforcement officials, legal experts and others sparred Wednesday over the wisdom of decriminalization and the parameters of state discretion in allowing sale of a drug prohibited under federal law.

Testimony revealed layers of complexity.

Attorney Tamar Todd of the Drug Policy Alliance Network testified that nothing bars the state from decriminalizing pot, for example, while Attorney Marty Mayer of the California Peace Officers' Association countered that doing so would not prevent prosecution under federal law.

Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills, suggested the taxing scheme could fall apart because retailers filing records of marijuana sales might incriminate themselves on a federal offense. "You can't force me to incriminate myself," Hagman said.

Supporters of AB 390 countered that medicinal marijuana dispensaries pay state taxes, despite the federal pot ban, a fact confirmed later Wednesday by the Board of Equalization.

Equally hazy Wednesday was potential revenue that could be raised through a $50-per-ounce excise tax, sales taxes and seller fees.

The Board of Equalization has estimated that marijuana sales could generate nearly $1.4 billion annually, a figure that has been hotly contested.

Robert Ingenito, a BOE administrator, conceded Wednesday that the estimate depends on numerous assumptions, none backed by hard data. They range from market demand to extent of consumption, and from impact on street prices to potential reduction in taxable alcohol sales.

"This is an imperfect exercise," he said.

Ammiano plans to push AB 390 when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

__________________

BillieBudd

I just read the comments section of the paper and am amazed that anti-legalization proponents can not come up with a reason to continue the status quo that could not be slashed to ribbons by anyone with a modicum of logic, much less someone like Buzzby....

KushCaptain317

Schwarzenegger doesn't support legalization? I have two problems with that statement: 1). Schwarzenegger used to smoke marijuana (see the end of Pumping Iron) and 2). He was one of the first California lawmakers to suggest looking into the legalization of marijuana.

dj Dozhe

A. He's a politician
B. Politician's want to get re-elected (plus he not so secretly wants to pursue a federal position)
C. A constant majority hasn't been reliably shown to support complete legalization

For a politician, coming out pro pot is extremely dangerous. It may not be abortion or gay marriage, but it could certainly be a strong voting issue. "Don't vote for him! His Pro Drug Addict views will destroy America!!" Worthless statement, but not hard to imagine it being said by some group that identifies itself as "Pro-Family" rather than "Ignorant and Manipulative"

It takes back bone to stand against prohibition on such a public level. Some politicians like Barney Frank have that back bone; Schwarzenegger does not.

MetallicaFan495

Well the fact that there is a bill for this is taking us one step forward to legalization. I think if we keep trying that people will eventually see that the government has no business telling us what we can and cant put into our bodies. We also need to convince people that someone smoking pot doesnt affect anyone but the person smoking it. Its not like people smoke weed then break into peoples homes, its quite the opposite. Most people smoke then sit around and eat and watch tv. Why is that the governments business? The simple answer is it isnt.

cj117

Hey you gotta be thankful that he's even as positive about it as he is.
Do you think the governor of Texas would even utter more than the one "No" he would respond with?

thunderson5

well no matter how this turns out atleast somebody is trying,got to give them plenty of credit on that.its more than alot of us do.its easy to kickback and light up wishing it was legal than actually going out there and actually trying to get some real results.deffinitly an up hill battle and would require a whole hell of a lot of someones time and dedication not to mention being rediculed and chance having there career ruined by people who dont know the real truth about pot and have been miss lead all of there lives infact brainwashed.for the goverment to discreminate against a whole group of people for using marijuana is just not to me atleast constitutionally moral or right,or very patriotic.george washinton thomas jefferson and most if not all the founding fathers if they would have forsaw this problem would have wrote some kind of leageslation on this to prevent this very problem and would be highly disturbed that we are even having this problem.make um sick to there stomachs id imagine.anyways we have come a long ways and the light at the end of the tunnel never looked brighter.it might still be quite awhile before its tottally legal but for the first time in my life its never seemed closer.all those out there trying should be considered our heros.if they legalize it in cali.i just might move back there but it would only be a matter of time before other states would follow.p.s.excuse any miss spells.

yoman3

The govenator wouldn't be pro-legalization because that would be political suicide. In the long run, people are either too undecided or too against legalization to actually hear "I want marijuana legalized" and support the person who said it. IE: political suicide.

If he DOES want it legalized, and he just isn't admitting it to stay in office, the debate thing would be a good idea. Having legalization debates would get all the information out there, and the undecided people would most likely lean towards legalization, and even some of the against people might (might) see the error of their ways and lean towards legalization. Then all you'd have left would be the completely stubborn prohibitionists that want marijuana illegal no matter how compelling the evidence is to legalize it.

Bodhi1976

There is no way Twinkies or Beer could protect and promote our society. By your reasoning (?), they should also be illegal... In general, we don't throw people in jail just for possessing something that doesn't protect and promote our society.