California lawmakers took a groundbreaking step towards legalizing and taxing marijuana on Tuesday when an Assembly committee approved legislation that would open the drug to the public.

The California Assembly’s Public Safety Committee passed AB 390, the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act, on a 4-3 vote, marking the first time in U.S. history that a state legislature has passed a proposal to legalize the drug.

The bill, written by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), would tax and regulate marijuana in a way similar to alcohol. Vendors would need a license to sell it and only those over the age of 21 could purchase it.

The state’s Legislative Analyst and the Board of Equalization have estimated that marijuana sales could bring up to $1.3 billion in yearly revenue based on a proposed $50-per-oz. levy.

The legislation has drawn strong opposition from anti-drug advocates who say bill would send the wrong message about drug tolerance.

Former San Diego mayoral candidate Steve Francis says the legalization of marijuana would end up costing the state money. Francis, who is also the founder of KeepComingBack.com, a website dedicated to news and research on alcohol and drug addiction, fears that the social costs of legalizing marijuana would outweigh tax revenues.

While Ammiano has said it could take up to two years before the bill is considered by the legislature, Aaron Smith, California policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project, says today’s outcome was encouraging.

“Today’s vote should give voters confidence that California’s failed and unjust war on marijuana consumers will soon come to an end,” Smith said. “It’s an encouraging sign that most members of the committee presiding over the state’s penal code have voted to toss marijuana prohibition onto the ash heap of history.”

Although the bill narrowly passed the committee, it all but died on Tuesday. The bill faces a Jan. 22 deadline for approving legislation from last year and no hearing has been scheduled for the Health Committee, which is where it must go before it is taken up by the Assembly. But Ammiano has vowed to reintroduce it.

“This is a significant vote because it legitimizes the quest for debate, legitimizes the quest for discussion,” Ammiano said. “This is far from over. Not only did we get it out of public safety, but members are now willing to say yes, this is worthy of discussion.”

                                        

Set as favorite

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

...

Odd -- in my previous post, "With MJ, MJ on site" somehow appeared. Ignore.

Point of clarification: The proposed MJ legalization will raise SOME tax revenue, but not NEARLY the figures being projected by proponents. THAT's my point -- pass the initiative for the right reasons.

A reminder -- I'm all FOR legalization of pot. We should end this "Reefer Madness" that criminalizes a clearly nonviolent victimelss pasttime -- one far less dangerous than alcohol.

And, BTW, I've never smoked so much as a cigarette, let alone MJ, crack, etc.

Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters , January 17, 2010

...

To see what the response is by consumers when taxes soar on a product, one only need look at cigarettes. When taxes zoomed upwards in Canada, they actually collected less revenue than before taxes went up. People made illegal purchases in the US.

With MJ, MJ on site.

Furthermore, the proposed tax in MJ is FAR higher than even the highest tax on tobacco -- many, many times the cost of producing and marketing MJ if it were simply legal.

People will be buying from their home-producing friends, and the jails will still be filled with MJ related sales.

Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters , January 17, 2010

...

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Rider's opinion that "[t]he proposed high tax will be bypassed by the black market." It seems a reasonable conclusion, at least to this observer, that a plethora of recreational MJ users would prefer to consume a regulated product, and therefore pay the taxes that would seem to guarantee the product's regulation - very much including its safety - as opposed a "black market" product that may be tainted by pesticides or any other number of undesirable elements that a black market buyer assumes the risk of.

Judge Smails , January 14, 2010

...

I'm for legalizing MJ, but the pitch that we'll rake in big bucks from high MJ taxes is nonsense. The proposed high tax will be bypassed by the black market, so we'll be locking folks up for tax evasion rather than drug selling -- and generate very little tax revenue.

Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters , January 13, 2010

...

Wow Ammiano really believes that this will pass no matter what.

sandiegoguy315 , January 12, 2010

Write comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.