PD Editorial: Getting ahead of pot legalization

Is legalizing recreational use of marijuana a good idea?

We’re still debating that question.

But if public opinion polls, election results in other states and people toking casually on California streets are a barometer, legalization may be inevitable. At a minimum, it’s increasingly likely to return to the ballot in 2016.

So if the state wants to avoid a repeat of the legal and legislative chaos produced by Proposition 215, the medical marijuana initiative, policymakers better get ready.

A new report by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s blue-ribbon commission on marijuana identifies some considerations that are almost certain to sprout up if Mendocino Gold joins Miller Lite and Marlboros on the list of legally sanctioned vices.

The watchword is caution.

As the Newsom report points out, “the legalization of marijuana would not be an event that happens in one election. Rather it would be a process that unfolds over many years, requiring sustained attention to implementation.”

Among the issues to consider are these: The conflict with federal law will remain firmly in place for the foreseeable future. So will the black market as long as marijuana remains illegal - and, in turn, more expensive - in nearby states. What happens if they sue, as Colorado’s neighbors have?

As for finances, will banks do business with marijuana growers and retailers if there’s a risk of federal prosecution?

With research showing more teens smoking pot than cigarettes, what’s the appropriate age to legally partake? What’s the best way to keep marijuana away from children and out of schools?

When is someone too high to drive? And how should that be assessed?

Who will be responsible for quality assurance and other consumer protections?

None of these issues is trivial. Few, if any, are likely to be settled by a ballot initiative.

Newsom’s commission made 58 recommendations, regulating the market from seed-to-sale and directing tax revenue to education programs and impacted communities. The panel also sought to tamp down any visions of a tax windfall, warning that it’s unlikely and, perhaps, unwise.

“While promising to fund other government programs through cannabis tax revenue may be a popular selling point for legalization proponents,” the report says, “we do not believe that making government dependent on cannabis taxes makes for sound public policy, nor do we believe cannabis tax revenue will be very large in relation to the total budgets of state and local government.”

Steep taxes could become an incentive for more people to abuse California’s anything-goes medical marijuana market or to stick with black market suppliers. Moreover, if government agencies become dependent on revenue from pot farming or retail sales, they could encourage excessive production, just as sales-tax dependence has driven land-use decisions in some communities.

In 2010, California voters wisely rejected a poorly crafted initiative to legalize marijuana. At least a half-dozen groups are working on pot initiatives for next year’s general election.

If they want to clear the air up front, they should carefully consider the recommendations made by Newsom’s blue-ribbon commission.