Editorial: Answer the questions before legalizing pot

As with most things, legalization of marijuana is not as simple as it might seem. Changing the law itself may take little more than an initiative such as the one soon to qualify for the California ballot. But precisely how would the law work?

Would marijuana be legal in any quantities in any location for any buyers? Or would there be age restrictions, quantity restrictions, limits on the potency?

Could it be legal for most people but illegal for others, such as bus drivers, physicians, cops? Would we need official buffer zones to keep the smoke away from those who don't want a second-hand high?

Amsterdam is touted as center of the marijuana universe because it allows fairly open pot smoking. What you may not know is that the Netherlands maintains a web of sometimes confusing pot laws. It is still illegal there to possess, sell or transport significant quantities of pot, or other drugs, even though it is legal to sit in something akin to a coffee shop and order a joint from a menu.

"May we suggest some nice Silver Haze followed perhaps by a pinch of Reclining Buddha?"

The intent of decriminalizing marijuana there was primarily to make the acquisition process less dangerous for the casual user. It seems to be working, and it appears
Advertisement
that the Dutch these days are lighting up less often than the British or the French.

You've likely heard that the Netherlands has the most liberal drug laws in Europe, but, in fact, the distinction belongs to Portugal. By a huge margin. The Portuguese essentially legalized pot and most other recreational drugs in 2001 on the theory that incarceration is much more expensive than drug treatment. Perhaps the most complete study on the subject found that drug use has actually gone down as a result of legalization, but opinions vary on the credibility of the research, partly because it was performed by a libertarian think tank.

With California police all but ignoring minor possession cases and with California cities now being inundated with requests to open medical marijuana dispensaries, the Golden State has taken steady steps toward decriminalization already. Pot is sold openly at many concerts and semi-openly on Craigslist. We're drifting toward legalization, but before we get there, we need to give serious thought to taxation, to the rules for sales and advertising, to how we're going to keep it away from children.

Though legalization advocates say driving stoned isn't nearly as dangerous as driving drunk, that needs to be well studied. It seems as though clear, measurable pot limits need to be established the way we set maximum blood-alcohol levels.

If marijuana is legal, how about derivatives? Hashish? What happens when someone develops super-strength pot? They will.

Some argue that taxing marijuana sales would cure California's budget ills. Maybe so, if the price remained the same after legalization and if the former scofflaws producing and selling pot declared the full value of their legal sales, neither of which is likely. And if some of the taxes are siphoned off to pay for drug treatment programs, which is almost certain to be a provision of the enabling legislation, will there be any money left over for roads and police pensions?

Though many people on both sides of the marijuana debate made their minds up long ago, based on personal experience and philosophy rather than science or study, there is still time for intelligent and informed debate as California decides what to do about marijuana and, just as important, how to do it.