Pubdate: Wed, 10 Oct 2012
Source: Daily Astorian, The (OR)
Copyright: 2012 The Daily Astorian
Contact:  http://www.dailyastorian.info/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1629

MARIJUANA IS NOT THE WAY TO FUND SCHOOLS

Measure 80

What is it?

The initiative provides for the regulated growth and sale of 
marijuana, as well as the legalization of hemp.

Where did it come from?

It is an initiative that received enough citizen signatures -- more 
than 88,000 -- to be placed on the ballot. The initiative's petition 
was launched by Paul Sadler, who owns a number of medical marijuana clinics.

What would it do?

If approved, adults in Oregon could grow and possess marijuana 
beginning Jan. 1, 2013. Marijuana would be regulated and taxed by a 
seven-person commission. Ninety percent of the net proceeds of the 
sale would go into the state's general fund. It would require the 
state's attorney general to defend the law against federal challenges.

Reality check:

Supporters argue that the state spends $61.5 million "imposing 
marijuana prohibition." Instead of spending money on law enforcement, 
the legalization would bring $140 million (their estimate) into the 
state's general fund and allow law enforcement to "go after real 
criminals." They also say that keeping marijuana in the so-called 
black market increases the price of the drug. District Attorney Josh 
Marquis of Clatsop County, representing the state's association of 
DAs, convincingly counters that legalizing marijuana would simply be 
introducing another intoxicant for general use -- with all of the 
associated problems. Despite supporters' claims to the contrary, 
marijuana is an addictive substance. Marquis also points out that 
Oregon has essentially decriminalized personal use of marijuana. 
Possession of less than an ounce won't put a user in jail, for example.

Check the fine print:

Under the measure, the seven-person Oregon Cannabis Commission would 
include five members associated with the marijuana community -- 
"elected at large by growers and processors." That's akin to letting 
the fox guard the hen house -- it makes the fox fat and sassy, but 
the chickens certainly suffer.

Recommendation:

We recommend a no vote. While the state may need more revenue, this 
is not the way it should fund public schools, social services and law 
enforcement. Most importantly, it would certainly set up a protracted 
legal battle that would tie up the state's justice department and pit 
it against the federal government. That's a losing proposition, both 
legally and financially. More sensible, consistent drug laws are 
needed at the state and federal levels, but this measure is not 
written for the public good.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom