No tie-dye was on display at a standing-room only hearing held by a California lawmaker on Wednesday in a bid to get his marijuana legalization bill taken seriously.

Instead, suits and sober discussion were the rule at the state Capitol as Assemblyman Tom Ammiano presided over what his office said was the first legislative consideration of the issue since California banned the drug in 1913.

Both sides of the debate were heard, but Ammiano has long had his mind made up.

Before the hearing, the San Francisco Democrat and former comedian called the criminalization of marijuana a failed policy that denies the state significant revenue. He said the bill could put the state in a position to set the national agenda on pot.

“I think we have a real shot at it, particularly in the context of it being in some ways bigger than California,” Ammiano said.

His bill would tax and regulate marijuana in the state much like alcohol. Adults 21 and older could legally possess, grow and sell marijuana. The state would charge a $50-per-ounce fee and a 9 percent tax on retail sales.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he does not support legalization but caused a stir in May when he said he was open to debate on the issue.

At least one poll showed a slight majority of Californians would support a tax-and-regulate scheme for pot, but the bill’s chances remain unclear. Skeptics have questioned whether the state could truly enforce a tax on marijuana and whether users and sellers would want to expose themselves to possible federal prosecution.

“You’re going to create a record of some sort,” said Assemblyman Curt Hagman, a San Bernardino County Republican. “You can’t force me to self-incriminate myself.”

Supporters of Ammiano’s bill noted the state already collects taxes from medical marijuana dispensaries with little federal interference.

Legal experts on both sides also agreed at the informational hearing that nothing in current federal law can prevent California from stripping criminal penalties for marijuana from its own books.

“If California decides to legalize marijuana, there’s nothing in the Constitution that stands in its way,” said Tamar Todd, a staff attorney for the pro-legalization Drug Policy Alliance.

Speakers at the hearing argued a number of issues, including whether legalization would increase or decrease crime and help or hurt children.

State tax collectors presented an estimate that Ammiano’s bill could generate nearly $1.4 billion in tax revenue. They cautioned, however, that the figure depended on several untested assumptions about how rates of use and prices would change following possible legalization.

Rosalie Pacula, director of drug policy research at the nonpartisan Rand Corp., said data on the economics of marijuana were “insufficient on which to base any sound policy.”

Pacula said a failed effort in Canada to increase taxes on cigarettes showed that unless taxes had a minimal effect on prevailing prices, “you create the economic incentive for the black market to remain.”

As the legalization movement has gained momentum, organized opposition outside law enforcement groups has been sparse. Still, several anti-pot protesters spoke passionately during and after the hearing.

Marijuana use is commonplace among young people in his Sacramento neighborhood, said Bishop Ron Allen, president of the International Faith Based Coalition, an anti-drug religious group.

Legalizing marijuana to tax it would help fill state coffers at the expense of its kids, he said.

“It’s blood money, that’s it,” he said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXqaCr8mSHC5wPjTJgCgnHv18Z3gD9BKQROG1

           

Whenever matters of marijuana policy make their way into the national spotlight, you can count on coming across some really ridiculous analysis from folks who haven’t exactly been paying attention. There are many ways to misunderstand the marijuana debate, my favorite of which might be the theory that — even though it’s all over the news — it’s actually part of a secret conspiracy.

Here, we have the editorial board of The Washington Post speculating that Obama’s recent medical marijuana announcement could be part of a plan to legalize marijuana without anyone noticing:

Yet this policy shift leaves significant questions unaddressed, including whether the Justice Department’s decision essentially constitutes a first step toward legalizing marijuana. Such an immense policy decision should not be ushered in surreptitiously, but should be tackled head-on, with a full-throated public debate about the possible benefits and consequences.

This is just completely delusional on multiple levels:

1. The administration leaked the story to the AP on a Sunday night, which is the opposite of secretive. That’s what you do when you want a week’s worth of intensive media coverage.
2. Telling the DEA not to arrest sick people is a far cry from supporting legalization for everyone. It’s very possible – and very common – for people to support the former and not the latter. For example…
3. The Obama Administration is opposed to legalization. They’ve said so before and after last week’s medical marijuana announcement. That question is not “unaddressed” even remotely.
4. There’s a “full-throated public debate” about marijuana legalization going on right now. And The Washington Post has been participating in it with numerous recent stories and editorials. You want us to send more op-eds?

I can’t even begin to fathom how The Post came up with this craziness, but if they want more debate, I’m ready to rock. I’ll show up at your office tomorrow morning with 15 awesome ideas for marijuana stories that I guarantee you The New York Times hasn’t thought of yet. And I ask for nothing in return, except some acknowledgement that marijuana legalization is not a secret conspiracy, but rather a defining issue at this moment in American politics.

Update: Pete Guither has more.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2009/oct/27/obama_isnt_plotting_to_legalize_

           

The argument to legalize marijuana is back in the news, after rock legend and Obama supporter Carlos Santana said that marijuana needs to be legalized, while also taking a hard swipe at California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, the Grammy-winning guitarist said, “I really believe that as soon as we legalize and decriminalize marijuana, we can actually afford a really good governor who won’t keep taking money away from education and from teachers and send him back to Hollywood where he can do ‘D’ movies and we can get an ‘A’ governor.” 

Santana went on to give a heart-felt plea to President Obama, saying,  “Bring the brothers home, and sisters home now. Legalize marijuana and take all that money and invest it in teachers and in education. You will see a transformation in America.”

Last week, President Obama acknowledged that the issue is a popular subject of debate at a town hall meeting at the White House, saying that many questions from his online audience came in about whether legalizing marijuana to stimulate the economy is a good idea.

Obama answered, “The answer is, no, I don’t think that is a good strategy — (laughter) — to grow our economy.” 

But there are some lawmakers who disagree with him.  California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano recently proposed a measure that would regulate marijuana in the state of California like alcohol - with people over the age of 21 allowed to grow, buy, sell, and possess cannabis.  If passed, he claims that the legalization of marijuana would be worth billions to the state. 

My question is, if our country can legalize alcohol and cigarettes, why not marijuana?  

Of course, one should not be able to drive or operate machinery while under the influence, government should regulate its quality and safety, and there should be age requirements and health warnings on packaging, but why is marijuana being held to a different standard than cigarettes and alcohol?

Cigarette smoking is highly addictive, can lead to cancer, most commonly lung cancer, but also cancer of the lips, mouth, throat, and voice box. Smokers also have a higher risk of getting esophagus, stomach, kidney, pancreas, cervix, bladder, and skin cancer.  Cigarette smoking can also lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high blood pressure, cataracts, and fertility problems, not to mention stained gums and teeth.

Excessive drinking can cause liver disease and cirrhosis, which rank among the top 10 leading causes of death in the nation, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, heart failure and increased calorie intake (leading to obesity and a higher risk of diabetes). It can also lead to stroke and cardiomyopathy, a disease in which the heart muscle becomes inflamed and doesn’t work efficiently, cardiac arrhythmia, (abnormal, irregular heartbeat) and sudden cardiac death.

Marijuana smoking, while thought to affect the brain and body many times long after one has stopped using the drug, is generally not any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation.

So what’s the problem?

Legalization of marijuana would likely mean a lower price of the drug, reducing related crimes like theft.  Street justice related to drug disputes would also be diminished.  As with most bootleggers from the 1920’s, marijuana dealers would lose most or all of their business.  Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes.  And legalization would also be a source of additional tax revenues.

The problem is that people are used to thinking that marijuana smoking is “bad.”  We have forgotten that drinking used to be “bad.”  In 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt and congress ended prohibition, many people were shocked and alarmed.  Then they got used to it.  Now, there is very little crime, in comparison, related to the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of alcohol.  

In contrast, cigarette smoking used to be “cool.”  In the fifties, most movie stars, on screen and off, were rarely without a cigarette.  Then in the early 1970’s, the harmful effects of cigarette smoking became widely publicized and we realized that cigarette smoking was very “uncool,” in fact, actually “bad.”  Some people still smoke despite.  Many do not.

I don’t expect that the legalization of marijuana would be much different. 

Elyce Strong - Examiner.com

           

When Barack Obama was first elected, he immediately began his straight-to-the-people, end-run-around-the-press style of Q&A by encouraging people to ask questions at Change.gov. One’s fellow citizens could then vote throughout Nov. and the first part of Dec. 2008 on their favorite questions, and Obama’s people would answer the most popular. When the dust settled and the votes were counted, among the most popular was this question:

“Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?”

The incoming Obama administration offered well-reasoned, thought-out answers to a whole host of questions, including controversial ones such as “Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor (ideally Patrick Fitzgerald) to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?”

But when it came time to tackle the oh-so-controversial topic of marijuana legalization, the response was a mere one sentence: “President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.”

No rationale, no justification. Just a blanket statement redolent of a parent smirking, “Because I said so.”

Fast-forward to today’s online town hall, and once again, marijuana legalization proved to be one of the most popular questions, with the most-approved-of pro-pot question being: “Should the U.S. legalize pot as a way to grow jobs and stimulate the economy?”

With all of his usual charisma and endearing jocularity, our president laughed off the question, stating “I don’t know what this says about the online audience, but, no, I don’t think that is a good strategy to grow the economy.” The mewling sycophants in the East Room audience laughed and burst into applause.

Once again, the Obama administration has greeted this question with an out-and-out rejection, with no reasoning underlying their position. Let’s ignore for a moment that Obama’s answer, in and of itself, is deeply wrong and ill-informed; moving from zero taxes on weed to any taxes is obviously an increase in revenue, not to mention the shift of growing and supplying jobs from the black market to legitimacy, which means more revenue in income taxes and more jobs.

Now, couple this with the millions, if not billions, of dollars that would be saved without the government being responsible for the care and feeding of hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders. From 1965 through the election of Barack Obama, our government arrested 20 million people for possession of marijuana. That, folks, is a lot of stoners.

In 2006 alone — the last year for which statistics are available — 829,625 people were arrested on marijuana-related charges, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Of these, 89 percent were arrested for simple possession.

So, couple the tax revenues, both sales and income, with the savings involved in keeping potheads out on the streets instead of in the pen. Now, put that Everest-sized pile of cash aside for a moment and think about this: Who’s losing money in the deal?

According to Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, fully 75 percent of Mexican drug cartels’ cash comes from the sale of marijuana. Legalizing marijuana would, of course, take away that massive source of income for the cartels, just as ending prohibition cut bootlegging as a source of revenue for La Cosa Nostra.

Combining all of the above effects, the legalization of marijuana means billions of dollars saved or made, the creation of jobs and the curbing of violence along the Mexican border, which in turn means saving thousands of lives.

Barack Obama can certainly be against legalization, but he owes it to nonviolent drug offenders caught in the horror show that is the U.S. prison system, the families of innocent victims of the Mexican drug wars and economically bloodied U.S. taxpayers to explain why. Ganja may cause the giggles, but legalization shouldn’t be a laughing matter. And it certainly shouldn’t be treated as cavalierly as it has by the current administration, especially when it has been proven to be a popular issue every time Obama has tried to go straight to the people.

Dan Sweeney - The Huffington Post

           

Maybe he was inspired by the Las Vegas rock club where he will soon be setting up shop during a 6+ month residency, or maybe he was inspired by Barack Obama’s answer to the most popular question posed by Americans to the president. In an interview with the Associated Press this week while promoting his upcoming run at The Joint, Carlos Santana was clear about his position about the legalization of marijuana, and took a shot at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger while he was at it.

“I really believe that as soon as we legalize and decriminalize marijuana we can actually afford a really good governor who won’t keep taking money away from education and from teachers and send him back to Hollywood where he can do ‘D’ movies and we can get an ‘A’ governor,” the multi-platinum, Grammy winning guitarist said.

Santana said he has a serious invitation for the new president: “Bring the brothers home, and sisters home now. Legalize marijuana and take all that money and invest it in teachers and in education. You will see a transformation in America.”

Over 3 million people voted on questions to be asked to President Obama for the online town hall that took place last week. All of the most popular six questions of the Budget section were about marijuana and drug legalization. Unlike the other questions which Obama answered completely with reasons and examples to support his stance, many felt slighted by the way he answered the pot question.

“Three point five million people voted,” Obama said. “I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy — (laughter) — and job creation. And I don’t know what this says about the online audience — (laughter) — but I just want — I don’t want people to think that — this was a fairly popular question; we want to make sure that it was answered. The answer is, no, I don’t think that is a good strategy — (laughter) — to grow our economy.”

California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano disagrees. He recently proposed measure AB 390 that if passed claims that the legalization of marijuana would be worth billions to the state. Times staffer Eric Bailey wrote in February,  “by some estimates, California’s pot crop is a $14-billion industry, putting it above vegetables ($5.7 billion) and grapes ($2.6 billion). If so, that could mean upward of $1 billion in tax revenue for the state each year.”

Santana’s Hard Rock Hotel and Casino residency in Sin City starts in late May and runs through 2010.

– Tony Pierce — Los Angeles Times

           

President Obama recently responded in the negative to a query on whether it’s time to legalize marijuana. Being a smart, rational guy, I guess he knew better than to rock his political boat by giving credence to such an outside-the-box solution as the decriminalization of marijuana.

By anyone’s standards though, our supposed war on drugs is a massive failure, a colossal waste of taxpayer money, and is actually escalating drug violence on our Mexican border with American guns and money flowing south while drugs come flooding north.

For this very reason, even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently had the good sense to admit that the U.S. bears some responsibility for the escalating drug violence in Mexico. She also admitted that the war on drugs has not been successful. But instead of taking the high road on the issue of her countrymen getting high, she instead offered nothing more than basically more of the same.

Her so-called solution is the very definition of insanity, whereby you keep doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result.

She should have noted her predecessor’s philosophy of knowing when to hold them or fold them. Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice related the story of how she wanted to be a major concert pianist and how she studied piano from the tender age of three, even majoring in music for a while. When she went off to a music festival and met 12-year-olds who could play from sight, that had taken her years to learn,  she came to grips with the reality that, although she might play at Nordstroms, she’d never play Carnegie Hall.

Why are Americans so averse to changing course regarding a new approach to our drug problem? Why not entertain the idea of slowly dismantling our archaic drug laws – perhaps as a trial run for a few years – and just see what happens?

We put a man on the moon. Can’t we come up with a safe and sensible way of responsibly selling marijuana? We sell alcohol and cigarettes, two deadly killers, and yet we seem comfortable with their distribution methods, even though it’s easier for kids to buy a six pack or a carton than it is for them to get their hands on Sudafed.

Why are we falling for the fallacy-filled excuse that we don’t want our pilots or bus drivers under the influence of marijuana? Of course we don’t. And we also don’t want them under the influence of legalized drugs either, which have proven deadly when operating a vehicle.

Dangers lurk everywhere in life, but we can be sensible about coping with them. Marijuana is not nearly as scary as violent drug dealers who create mayhem on our streets, who deal with megabucks that further fuel their purchase of more deadly guns. We need to stop and think — really think – about how best to de-escalate the myriad problems that have been created - not solved - by our current war on drugs.

If adults choose to abuse the use of marijuana, we need to allow them the freedom to do so, just as we already do with their freedom to abuse alcohol and tobacco.

We also should be less naive about our children. They are already quite savvy in getting whatever they want whenever they want. But they are getting it in unsavory places from unsavory people, paying outrageous prices. How long would those pushers stay in business if they knew that the dope they sell could be legally undersold at a fraction of their price?

We need to look in another direction if we are to have any hope of addressing drug use in our country. If a non-user grandmother like myself can entertain the possibility of legalizing marijuana, maybe you can too. We just need to be brave in taking the first step toward imagining a world where draconian laws, incarceration, fear and ridicule may not be the only answers out there.

Jill Chapin

Fog City Journal

           

           

When the president opened his first Internet town hall Thursday, what he got, amid questions about the economy, health care and education, was a host of queries that could have come from Sean Penn’s pothead-philosopher in the movie ”Fast Times at Ridgemont High.”

Several marijuana legalization questions, including a suggestion from 2007 Quakertown High School grad Ryan McLaughlin, ranked among the most popular submitted to the White House Web site for the live ”Open for Questions” Webcast.

They got so much online support that Obama was forced to acknowledge the budding interest in the topic.