Pubdate: Fri, 26 Mar 2010
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Page: Front Page
Copyright: 2010 San Jose Mercury News
Contact:  http://www.mercurynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/390
Author: Denis C. Theriault
Cited: Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act http://www.taxcannabis.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)

LEGAL MARIJUANA AFTER NOVEMBER VOTE? MAYBE YES, MAYBE NO

SACRAMENTO - Californians on Thursday woke to the surprising news 
that, come November, they'll get to decide whether their state should 
be the first to legalize marijuana. And with that news came one 
whopper of a question:

Dude . . . we can do that?

According to law professors and other experts, the answer is yes - but ..

No matter what Californians decide, marijuana will still be illegal 
under federal law. That means a tangle of legal and political 
questions must be confronted before advocates can realize their dream 
of freely growing, selling and using marijuana everywhere in the Golden State.

First, voters have to sign off on what might be a contentious 
campaign - no sure thing, despite recent polls showing an upswing in support.

And complaints from neighboring states, whose residents could flock 
to California, may prove too loud for the White House to ignore. 
Federal prosecutors and drug agents, who have largely let state 
prosecutors handle drug crimes in recent decades, could begin to 
intervene in smaller-scale cases.

"The pressure on the Obama administration to try to block this or 
resist it is going to be enormous," said Robert MacCoun, a UC 
Berkeley law professor and drug policy expert. "It's very hard for a 
single state to pass a law like this and implement it."

Moreover, experts say, approval of the referendum could trigger a 
backlash against Proposition 215, the state law that authorizes 
medicinal use of marijuana. While the Obama administration last year 
promised to turn a blind eye to sick people, even though medical 
marijuana also conflicts with federal law, it may not be willing to 
do the same when it comes to street-corner dealers and people who 
just want to get high.

Advocates on Thursday appeared more sanguine. "The federal government 
is going to allow the state of California to move forward with this," 
said Salwa Ibrahim, spokeswoman for the pro-legalization campaign led 
by cannabis activist Richard Lee of Oakland. "We're not worried about it."

Added Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, sponsor of a separate 
decriminalization bill: "We do have the right to legalize, even with 
the federal law as it is."

The initiative, officially the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act 
of 2010, was certified for November's ballot Wednesday after backers 
turned in signatures from hundreds of thousands of voters.

If it's approved, adults 21 and older would be permitted to possess 
up to an ounce of marijuana; anyone could grow up to 25 square feet 
of plants per residence; and local governments would be asked to 
craft rules on distributing and taxing marijuana. The Secretary of 
State's Office said it would take effect the day after Election Day.

Both the governor's office and the office of the state attorney 
general declined to comment on the initiative Thursday. Attorney 
General Jerry Brown, who also will appear on the November ballot as 
the Democratic nominee for governor, is charged with writing official 
ballot summaries for initiatives and told reporters he should remain 
neutral for that reason.

A White House spokesman also declined to comment, although the 
president and some administration officials have previously said they 
do not support legalization.

Supporters are emboldened in part by a Board of Equalization estimate 
that said marijuana tax revenue could add more than $1 billion to the 
state's starved coffers - although some experts question that, saying 
few people likely would report marijuana sales on their federal 
income taxes for fear of prosecution.

"If other states do this, over time, that might affect Congress' 
attitude, and the president's," said Vikram Amar, a law professor at 
UC Davis. "But until federal law changes, I wouldn't advise someone 
to run the risk of getting thrown in federal jail." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake