Key vote supports recreational marijuana use

[garbon]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/12/BA191BH4AR.DTL

California lawmakers on Tuesday endorsed an overhaul of the state's marijuana laws by pushing forward a bill to legalize adult recreational use and taxation of the drug.

The 4-3 vote by the Assembly Public Safety Committee was the first in the nation by a legislative body supporting recreational use of the drug. But several of the lawmakers who voted for the plan said they did so only to extend debate.

"I do not support marijuana. I don't use it, I don't want my kids to use it, I don't want anyone's kids to use it," said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, who voted in favor. But he said he supported the plan because he wants "a more rationale approach to ... a failed criminalization policy."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger supported extending the discussion, though he added that he supports current laws.

"(The Legislature) will come up with a good decision, I'm absolutely convinced of that," the Republican governor said.

The bill may die a procedural death, however, as it is up against a Friday legislative deadline to move out of the health committee, which has no meetings scheduled before the end of the week. The bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said he would reintroduce the plan if that happened.

"This is a significant vote today because it legitimizes the quest for debate, the quest for discussion," Ammiano said. "There was a time when the 'm' word never would have been brought up in Sacramento."Under existing California law, only medical use of the drug is allowed. Recreational use is not permitted and users, sellers and growers risk jail time, prison time and/or fines.

AB390 would allow possession, sale and cultivation of marijuana for people over 21, and impose a $50-an-ounce sales tax, much like taxes on tobacco and alcohol. The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control would be tasked with regulation.

The vote in Sacramento comes as state lawmakers in New Jersey on Monday made that state one of the few on the East Coast to approve medicinal marijuana use. Up north in Olympia, the Washington State Legislature will consider two bills today to remove state criminal penalties associated with marijuana.

In California, law enforcement officials from across California attended the Tuesday hearing to oppose the measure, while drug policy reform advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union spoke in favor.

San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer, who is acting president of the California Police Chiefs Association, said she was "disappointed" by the committee's action and said she believes the state's approach for handling marijuana has been effective in keeping young people from using it.

"I think we need to have the full dialogue in debunking the myths," she said, predicting the social costs would outweigh any tax gains.

State officials have estimated taxing and regulating marijuana could bring anywhere from a few hundred million dollars up to $1.4 billion annually, though one person who testified against the measure called that "blood money."

Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills (San Bernardino County), the vice-chairman of the committee, voted against the proposal and said it had not fully been vetted.

"This issue needs to be discussed more, but this bill is not the vehicle to do that," Hagman said.

Drug policy reform advocates called the vote a watershed moment for marijuana laws.

"This is an historic vote that marks the formal beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition in the United States," said Stephen Gutwillig, California state director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Ammiano won the support of the other Democrats on the committee, who are all from the Bay Area. Voting yes were Ammiano, Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, Huffman and Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley. Voting no were Furutani, Assemblyman Danny Gilmore, R-Hanford (Kings County) and Hagman.

[DisturbedPervert]

she believes the state's approach for handling marijuana has been effective in keeping young people from using it.

Anyway, great news.

[Admiral Yi]

50 clams an ounce tax?  Yikes.

[sbr]

About fucking time.

[Martinus]

Like gay marriage, it will fail at the poll booths.

A lot of gays were too scatter-brained and a lot of potheads will be too stoned to properly understand the relevant prop question (e.g. "Are you against abolishing the proposal allowing for anti-marijuana ban?")

[garbon]

Like gay marriage, it will fail at the poll booths.

A lot of gays were too scatter-brained and a lot of potheads will be too stoned to properly understand the relevant prop question (e.g. "Are you against abolishing the proposal allowing for anti-marijuana ban?")

The state legislature can adopt laws on its own.

[DisturbedPervert]

50 clams an ounce tax?  Yikes.

The tax probably needs to be high to have a chance at passing.

[Martinus]

Like gay marriage, it will fail at the poll booths.

A lot of gays were too scatter-brained and a lot of potheads will be too stoned to properly understand the relevant prop question (e.g. "Are you against abolishing the proposal allowing for anti-marijuana ban?")

The state legislature can adopt laws on its own.

But then it will be vetoed by Arnold or repealed by a referendum worded in a way for potheads to mix it up.

[garbon]

But then it will be vetoed by Arnold or repealed by a referendum worded in a way for potheads to mix it up.

I'd suggest less anal sex.

[Tamas]

A lot of gays were too scatter-brained and a lot of potheads will be too stoned to properly understand the relevant prop question (e.g. "Are you against abolishing the proposal allowing for anti-marijuana ban?")

You, sir, hate gays and thus deserve to die a slow and painful death.

[Caliga]

50 clams an ounce tax?  Yikes.

Yeah.  The result will be most marijuana sales will continue to be black market. 

[DisturbedPervert]

50 clams an ounce tax?  Yikes.

Yeah.  The result will be most marijuana sales will continue to be black market. 

An ounze is a lot of weed.  I remember it being $50 for an 1/8th back in college, so it's not that much.  I think the convenience of being able to go to 7-11 to pick up a pack of joints will mean the big companies will capture most of the market.  Once Phillip Morris starts huge weed plantations it will be dirt cheap, the $50 tax won't be that much. 

[garbon]

An ounze is a lot of weed.  I remember it being $50 for an 1/8th back in college, so it's not that much.  I think the convenience of being able to go to 7-11 to pick up a pack of joints will mean the big companies will capture most of the market.  Once Phillip Morris starts huge weed plantations it will be dirt cheap, the $50 tax won't be that much. 

[Barrister]

Given the numerous federal laws about marijuana, this wouldn't change much.

[Strix]

Legalizing it does little except add a few tax dollars and driving down the cost of it. Oh and INCREASE the involvement and costs to law enforcement.

People will grow there own which will mean very little of the expected tax money will be realized. If it stays illegal for people to grow on their own than the black market will still continue to function just selling it cheaper. It will drive down the prices either way.

It will interesting to see if it does pass if a 1920's Bootlegger-type rush will occur.