Former SF Supervisor Brings the City's Progressiveness to the State

California would become the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana for recreational use under a bill introduced Monday by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco.

The proposal would regulate marijuana like alcohol, with people over 21 years old allowed to grow, buy, sell and possess cannabis - all of which is barred by federal law.

Ammiano, a Democrat in his third month as a state lawmaker, said taxes and other fees associated with regulation could put more than a billion dollars a year into state coffers at a time when revenues continue to decline.

He said he thinks the federal government could soften its stance on marijuana under the Obama administration.

"We could in fact have the political will to do something, and certainly in the meantime this is a public policy call and I think it's worth the discussion," Ammiano said. "I think the outcome would be very healthy for California and California's economy."

A spokeswoman for the Drug Enforcement Agency in Washington, D.C., declined to comment on the proposal. A White House spokesman referred to a statement on a question-and-answer section of an Obama transition team blog that says the president "is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana."

While Californians have shown some tolerance for marijuana, such as use for medical conditions with voters' passage of Proposition 215 in 1996, the proposal will face tough opposition in Sacramento.

A lobbyist for key police associations in the state called it "a bad idea whose time has not come."

"The last thing our society needs is yet more legal intoxicants," said John Lovell, who represents the California Peace Officers' Association, California Police Chiefs Association and California Narcotic Officers' Association. "We've got enough social problems now when people aren't in charge of all five of their senses."

But Ammiano's proposal has the support of San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, who said the idea "should be the subject of legislative and public debate."

It also has the backing of Betty Yee, who chairs the state Board of Equalization, which collects taxes in California. An analysis by the agency concluded the state would collect $1.3 billion a year from tax revenues and a $50-an-ounce levy on retail sales if marijuana were legal.

The analysis also concluded that legalizing marijuana would drop its street value by 50 percent and increase consumption of the substance by 40 percent.

A spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates for reform in marijuana laws and is backing Ammiano's proposal, said any expected increase in consumption is a "false notion."

"They are making an intuitive assumption that a lot of people make that really does not have that much evidence behind it," said Bruce Mirken, the group's spokesman, who predicted it could take up to two years before the idea wins legislative approval.

"Don't tell me that doing something like (this) proposal is going to introduce another drug into society. That's a load of bull."

-SFGate.com

The Recession Hits Home

My boss plops today's SF Chronicle onto my desk. "Looks like you made your escape just in time," she says. In the middle of the page is an article with updates of San Francisco's ongoing budget crisis and a shot of the building where I used to work. With more money being funneled into California's "Internal Waste Management Committee" (where money is being allotted primarily to the 6-figure salaries of its committee heads) many substance abuse and mental health programs are seeing massive reductions in services. The first things to go for Walden House were the adolescent programs that provided these services to youth transitioning out of the juvenile justice system. As a result, the teens are being abandoned by the system that's supposed to be helping and healing them. As if these kids didn't have abandonment issues already. . . now they are faced with two choices: the streets or the YGC. This is disheartening considering that society's greatest investment is in the youth population.

A part of me left Walden House because I knew that my job wasn't 100% secure. I'd known this since the announcement was made this summer that the methamphetamine program would be cut and jobs would be lost. The loss wasn't executed but it still had everyone sitting at the edge of our seats. Talking to old coworkers now, I hear that there is a silent depression that looms above the desk where I used to work. Walden House's Multi-Services facility, located in the heart of the Mission on 15th Street, offered indigent citizens of San Francisco services that aided in finding housing, employment, case management and counseling. More importantly, it was a safe haven from the darkest of the City's crevices. It was a place intended to foster growth for the community, development of self in lost souls, and the increased need for a "family" for those who had none. And now- less money means less employees, less hours, less services, less help.

The streets are going to blow up soon and I fear that, regardless of our new hope in Barack Obama's presidency, a violent revolution is bound to happen. I say I fear though I know that revolt is what its going to take to get it right... and people, we need to get it right.

"It's going to be massive in its impact. What we do for the poorest of the poor is minimal in the best of times. There's more to be done out there, not less."

- Rod Libbey, CEO of Walden House, Inc. [read entire article]

Arguing Both Sides

The class was divided perfectly down the middle: two rows of 14 students facing each other in competitive opposition. This was our first in-class debate. I had mentally prepared for it all day. I scrutinized the literature, built my vocabulary, and checked my personal agenda. When Sal asked the class to chose sides, I didn't even think twice. But, of course, true to academic form, the professor challenges his students in an attempt to expand their minds.

"For this debate, I want those of you who are for the decriminalization of drugs to argue against it and vice versa. I ask this because that the best way to argue an issue is to know the other side, that way you can find loopholes in the opposing arguements."

(Disclaimer: I use the term 'drugs' because our debate encompassed every category of illicit drugs with no specific one in mind. Personally, I believe in the decriminalization of only marijuana which, fortunately, is a reality in the City and County of San Francisco. As for heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines etc... I, in no way, shape or form, advocate their use.)

Shit. All of a sudden, my confidence level plummeted. I feared that because I didn't feel passionately enough about the opposing view I wouldn't be able to competently defend it. The entire class appeared to feel the same way, raising the question, "How can you expect us to argue for something that we don't believe in?" However, as the debate started, I began to see Sal's point. I was ready to argue the benefits that decriminalization would lead to - issues of increased tax revenue, decreased incarceration/crime rates, and stronger regulation policies to name a few. Now I had to take all that preparation and find a way to discredit the argument that I had built.

Pro: "The decriminalization of drugs would provide an opportunity for the government to tax drugs as goods. The extra revenue would help boost the economy and provide funding for other programs such as education. It would create a market for new employment opportunities."

Con: "The decriminalization of drugs would create a market of goods that would more than likely become privatized and handled by major corporations, as is the case with most prescription drugs. This would provide another venue for the wealthy 1% to create a larger gap between the upper and lower classes. Demand for drugs is high in the lower income bracket and decriminalization would allow for the exploitation of the lower class."

Pro: "The decriminalization of drugs would solve the issue of overcrowding in state prisons. With fewer people charged with possession, distribution, sale, etc. of drugs the inmate population would decrease dramatically. Many who are incarcerated on drug charges weren't even convicted of serious violent crimes anyway."

Con: "The decriminalization of drugs would decrease the need for an expansive corrections department, which is a billion dollary industry, especially in California. Thousands of people would lose their jobs which would have a tremendous effect on society. And what would the state do with the all of the prisoners? Release them back into society with an apology? Not only will the state see legal action, the Federal government could face thousands, if not millions, of lawsuits from angry ex-inmates and their families demanding restitution for infringement of their constitutional rights."

(The two following arguments have more to do with the legalization of drugs which is completely different from the decriminalization of drugs. The term decriminalization was used for debate's sake.)

Pro: "The decriminalization of drugs would allow the government to regulate drugs the same way food is regulated by the FDA. The government would be able to regulate to whom the drugs would be available(e.g., individuals over a certain age), drug potencies, and methods of distribution, etc."

Con: "The decriminalization of drugs would not eliminate a black market for drugs because drugs will always be denied to some sector of the population whether it be children under the age of 18 or to the low-income who may not be able to afford them. Furthermore, a new set of laws would have to be created. Law enforcement would be faced with dilemmas on who will be able to use drugs and when. For instance, would airline pilots or school bus drivers be able to use drugs?"

Needless to say, the debate wasn't as clean and clear cut as Sal had hoped it would turn out. Many of the students could not stick to one issue at a time and, although we agreed to not take the debate personal, some of us walked out of class with bruised egos. For myself, I have come to believe that any change in drug policy would have an adverse effect on society. If we took away issues of money and the right to individual autonomy (in this case, the right to be in control of our consciousness) Americans would still be left with the grim reality that drugs, legal or not, cause deterioration in ourselves, our communities, and our country as a whole.

It struck me how passionately I argued against decriminalization, considering how strongly I felt (or thought I felt) about it in the beginning of class. I began to see that my knowledge of the subject was not sufficient enough for me to stand completely firm in my initial opinions on the subject. That's what education is for - an opportunity to develop one's personal beliefs through gained knowledge.

On another note, throughout the debate my heartbeat raced. I love heated debate. It drives me.