Commentary: Public not served by marijuana measure

Published 5:00 pm Monday, October 29, 2012

Measure 80

What is it?

The initiative provides for the regulated growth and sale of marijuana, as well as the legalization of hemp.

Where did it come from?

It is an initiative that received enough citizen signatures more than 88,000 to be placed on the ballot. The initiatives petition was launched by Paul Sadler, who owns a number of medical marijuana clinics.

What would it do?

If approved, adults in Oregon could grow and possess marijuana beginning Jan. 1, 2013. Marijuana would be regulated and taxed by a seven-person commission. Ninety percent of the net proceeds of the sale would go into the states general fund. It would require the states attorney general to defend the law against federal challenges.

Reality check:

Supporters argue that the state spends $61.5 million imposing marijuana prohibition. Instead of spending money on law enforcement, the legalization would bring $140 million (their estimate) into the states general fund and allow law enforcement to go after real criminals. They also say that keeping marijuana in the so-called black market increases the price of the drug. District Attorney Josh Marquis of Clatsop County, representing the states association of DAs, convincingly counters that legalizing marijuana would simply be introducing another intoxicant for general use with all of the associated problems. Despite supporters claims to the contrary, marijuana is an addictive substance. Marquis also points out that Oregon has essentially decriminalized personal use of marijuana possession of less than an ounce wont put a user in jail, for example.

Check the fine print:

Under the measure, the seven-person Oregon Cannabis Commission would include five members associated with the marijuana community elected at large by growers and processors. Thats akin to letting the fox guard the hen house it makes the fox fat and sassy, but the chickens certainly suffer.

Recommendation:

We recommend a no vote. While the state may need more revenue, this is not the way it should fund public schools, social services and law enforcement. Most importantly, it would certainly set up a protracted legal battle that would tie up the states lawyers and pit them against the federal government. Thats a losing proposition, both legally and financially. More sensible, consistent drug laws are needed at the state and federal levels, but this measure is not written for the public good.