Another Chance to Legalize Pot in California

If medical marijuana is de facto legalization, why not make it official?

Possessing up to an ounce of marijuana in California is an “infraction” punishable by a $100 fine. In other words, state law treats pot smoking as a transgression akin to jaywalking or fishing without a license. Yet growing and selling marijuana are felonies that can send you to prison for years.

If consuming marijuana is not a crime, how can it be a crime merely to help someone consume marijuana? That is a question voters will confront next fall if the California Cannabis Hemp Initiative qualifies for the ballot.

The initiative, which would eliminate all state and local penalties for producing, possessing, and distributing marijuana, instructs the legislature to regulate cannabis “in a manner analogous to, and no more onerous than, California’s beer and wine model.” That is similar to the policies approved last fall by voters in Colorado, where the legalization initiative was known as the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, and Washington, where the state liquor control board will license pot shops that are scheduled to open next year.

The Colorado and Washington initiatives both received about 55 percent of the vote, and recent polling in California indicates a similar level of support. All three states have had medical marijuana dispensaries for years, and that experience on the whole appears to have been reassuring.

The main criticism of the dispensaries—that they cater largely to recreational consumers who fake or exaggerate symptoms to get the requisite doctor’s notes—actually counts in favor of broader legalization. If medical marijuana is a charade that amounts to de facto legalization, what is there to fear from making it official?

States that allow medical use do not seem to have suffered as a result. In fact, Montana State University economist D. Mark Anderson and University of Colorado economist Daniel Rees find that enacting medical marijuana laws is associated with a 13 percent drop in traffic fatalities, possibly because more cannabis consumption means less alcohol consumption, which has a much more dramatic effect on driving ability.

Anderson and Rees also consider the impact of legalization on pot smoking by teenagers. Looking at data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey from 1993 through 2011, they see “little evidence of a relationship between legalizing medical marijuana and the use of marijuana among high school students.” Narrowing the focus to California after medical marijuana dispensaries began proliferating, they find “little evidence that marijuana use among Los Angeles high school students increased in the mid-2000s.”

The two economists’ conclusion suggests that Californians need not worry that repealing pot prohibition will trigger a cannabis catastrophe: “We expect that the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington will lead to increased marijuana consumption coupled with decreased alcohol consumption. As a consequence, these states will experience a reduction in the social harms resulting from alcohol use. While it is more than likely that marijuana produced by state-sanctioned growers will end up in the hands of minors, we predict that overall youth consumption will remain stable. On net, we predict the public-health benefits of legalization to be positive.”

That prediction hinges on the assumption that marijuana and alcohol are substitutes, meaning that an increase in pot smoking will accompanied by a decrease in drinking. Writing in the same issue of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, RAND Corporation drug policy expert Rosalie Liccardo Pacula and University of South Carolina criminologist Eric Sevigny say the evidence on that point “remains mixed.” If marijuana and alcohol turn out to be complements, they warn, the costs associated with more drinking could outweigh the benefits of legalization.

Yet Pacula and Sevigny acknowledge that the hazards associated with marijuana itself pale beside the cost of treating its production, sale, and use as crimes. Which brings us back to the question of how using force to stop people from obtaining marijuana can be morally justified, especially in a society that tolerates a much more dangerous intoxicant.

This article originally appeared in The Orange County Register.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I thought Obama legalized pot around the time he freed the gays from slavery and granted women the right to free contraception.

  • Tim||

    No, first he has to reverse the polarity on the main deflector dish.

  • bassjoe||

    While fixing the matter-antimatter containment field with the ship stuck at Warp 8.

    /I can do this all day.

  • Libertymike||

    Even if the ship remains stuck at Warp 8?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Sounds like it is stuck in a ditch at Warm 8. This guy can do anything!

  • bassjoe||

    The intertial dampeners wouldn't all the ship to drop out of warp 8...

  • SQRLSY One||

    Obama-Scare drug warriors / health care NAZIs annually probed me, found the non-prescribed “lung flute” that I had hidden there (go see www.churchofSQRLS.com for details about un-prescribed “lung flutes” if you don’t believe me), and SAVED me from a life-long, craven addiction to HUFFING AND PUFFING ENDLESSLY on un-prescribed, ILLEGAL cheap plastic flutes! So don’t you be talkin’ bad about Our Own Deeply Beloved Government Almighty Heroes and Sheroes…

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    You forgot about closing Camp X-Ray, lowering the seas, and good Lord this list is too long to remember.

  • Dead or In Jail||

    The Big Money has already decided that they are going to put liberty on hold until the 2016 election when weed can be used to induce reliably Democratic young people to go vote for Hillary or whatever other egalitarian the Donks decide to vomit up in the nomination.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....77847.html

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    My prediction is they end up with another Black Market Preservation Act by "legalizing" via excessive regulation and taxation. The "Legalize it just like alcohol" crowd will prevail, with their mass ignorance of what really happened then. Moonshining and bootlegging did not end on December 5, 1933.

  • JidaKida||

    Rapp Manny said that will enver happen!

    www.Privacy-Web.tk

  • kiyajeena215||

    my buddy's sister-in-law makes $89/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for seven months but last month her paycheck was $13360 just working on the laptop for a few hours. visit the website
    ===========================
    http://www.FB49.com
    ===========================
    Go to website and click Home tab for more details.

  • John Thomas||

    The issue in California is whether to go an initiative victory in 2014, as CCHI does, or to wait until 2016, as the major reform organizations (NORML, MPP, etc.) want to do.

    The waiters say we should wait until 2016 when the presidential election will bring out more young voters.

    The problem is, that's assuming that public support will stay strong. Assuming is dangerous.

    “What goes up can go down,” warned Rob MacCoun, professor of law and public policy at UC Berkeley, referencing the drop in support for legalization during the 1980s. “This is not inevitable historical determinism.”

    Will Godfrey notes there are several potential factors that could stall or even reverse current momentum.

    "Plummeting prices could cause a spike in adolescent use; an unexpected perspective-altering event (like 9/11) could transform the landscape; a rogue 2016 presidential candidate could hijack the conversation. And unless the cannabis industry’s banking issue—businesses can’t open accounts with federally insured institutions—is resolved, crimes associated with the large quantities of cash floating around the industry could also wreak political damage."

  • John Thomas||

    Godfrey continues:

    "Other, more powerful industries could identify marijuana as an enemy and sink serious dollars into anti-legalization campaigns. Big Alcohol in particular could be threatened by the kind of SAFER messaging (presenting evidence that marijuana is much less dangerous than alcohol) of which Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, is an architect. “I’m getting lobbied pretty hard by the alcohol industry to change that message,” Kampia said. There are other potential enemies: “Medical marijuana is a threat to the pharmaceutical industry,” said attorney and activist Henry Wykowski. “They’re going to push back.”

    Steve DeAngelo also identified internal threats to the unity of the marijuana movement, like tensions between medical marijuana and “adult use” advocates (who each accuse the other of damaging their respective prospects with insensitive messaging), distrust between grassroots activists and professional political consultants, and antagonism between libertarians and left-wingers."

    California's big reform groups should re-think their position about 2014. Next year could be the bird-in-the-hand that all may regret we did not capture.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement