Growing Pot

Recently in the news, California State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has introduced a bill (the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act [AB 390]) to legalize the production and sale of marijuana. Calls to decriminalize or normalize marijuana use have long existed, and have gained greater support as our prisons become overcrowded and police officers remain overworked. For this reason, Santa Monica is among the cities that have essentially told its police officers to disregard incidents that involve small level possession or usage of marijuana.

This bill, though, is not looking to overturn any cruel and unusual punishments for pot users. It is not striving to undue great injustices. It is nothing more than another desperate effort to increase the state's pocketbook. Be sure, Ammiano cares not about the potential health risks or prison sentences users might face. He just wants to tax them and grow the government's pot.

As I stated from the very first post here, I am not looking to get into moral discussions on the lottery or, in this case, marijuana. Suffice it to say that I've played with both in my time. We've seen quite clearly that adding lottery revenue to the state coffers, supposedly to supplement education spending, has allowed politicians to expand the general budget. This means more government run programs and services that we don't need, or that we do need but are delivered inefficiently and of substandard quality. I've always heard that fish grow to the size of their bowl. While I don't know if that's true, government has proven that it will grow itself to the size of its budget.

In 2006, Prop 86 asked voters to increase the state excise tax on tobacco products by $2.60, with the additional money going to support new or expanded programs for health services, children's health services, and anti-tobacco initiatives. On a personal note, my mother recently passed away from cancer, which I have no doubt was caused by years of cigarette use. So, I am no fan of tobacco companies. However, I voted against Prop 86 (as did a majority of Californians), and I would do so again today for the same reason. In order to sustain those "new or expanded programs", we would need to make sure that a high number of Californians continue to smoke. If they gave up tobacco, thereby no longer paying the $2.60 additional tax, the money would dry up. However, we know that the health services created by this law would not simultaneously go away. The result would be higher taxes on the rest of Californians to continue paying for those programs.

Similarly, despite the argument of some that smoking joints is not as unhealthy as smoking cigarettes, I don't think anyone can make the case that smoking pot is good for you. Under AB 390, the California government would need you to use and marijuana to pay for its debt, just as it pushes the lottery on people regardless of their financial situations.

A believer in smaller government, I support a doctor's right to prescribe medicine that he or she feels will best benefit a paitent, including medical marijuana. I also agree that we need to look at the priorities of our peace officers, courts and prisons, and figure out where marijuana related crimes should fit on that list. However, I refuse to support a government money grab that promotes the use of any narcotic solely to expand its already expansive wallet.