Q&A with Tom Ammiano CA State Assemblyman

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
"Can Californians help dig themselves out of their historic fiscal crisis by getting high? Tom Ammiano thinks so, and he isn't smoking a thing.

On Feb. 23, the California State Assembly member introduced legislation that would regulate the cultivation and sale of marijuana, and then tax it. By legalizing pot, the San Francisco lawmaker argues, the state could reap huge new revenues. Currently pot is California's biggest cash crop, with annual sales reaching $14 billion. Vegetables, the state's second hottest agricultural product, take in a mere $5.7 billion. And California's famous grapes? A piddling $2.6 billion.

If passed, the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act would give California control of pot in a manner similar to alcohol, while prohibiting its purchase to citizens under age 21. The state's tax collectors estimate the measure would bring in about $1.3 billion in new revenues a year.

Ammiano, a former schoolteacher and stand-up comedian, has been one of the most famous activists and politicians in San Francisco for decades. In the late '70s, he jump-started the movement against the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gay teachers in California (he appeared as himself in the film "Milk"), served on the San Francisco Board of Education, and later was president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Salon recently spoke to him about why he thinks making pot legit would have California smiling.

Why legalize marijuana in California now?

There's gold in them thar hills! We have one of the worst budget situations we've ever had, and it's a $14 billion industry that's not going away. Everybody knows this and nobody has wanted to go after it. I, frankly, think the time has come.

Even if California did regulate and tax selling marijuana, wouldn't it still be illegal at the federal level?

Federal law preempts a lot of things we've done in California, anyway -- domestic partners, gay marriage, the medical use of marijuana. Certainly the Obama administration has been telegraphing they'd like to revisit the failed war on drugs. New Attorney General Eric Holder just issued an edict: No more raids on medical marijuana dispensers. And, man, if that doesn't reinforce what I have been saying, I don't know what does. Of course, everyone likes to be in the position of saying, "See, I told you I was right."

In many ways, it's common sense. You have drug cartels growing marijuana in our national parks. It's no more the hippie-dippy guy or woman in Humboldt. This is organized crime with no morality and no value of human life. Look at the money you would save in law enforcement by regulating marijuana, decriminalizing it and putting those resources into serious crimes. The black market and the street sales would decline. Pumping $1 billion into our economy is going to provide a lot of green jobs. No pun intended. Obama seems to be a bright-enough guy to realize that.

How would your legislation affect the people in prison for nonviolent drug offenses related to marijuana?

That would be another cost savings. If it's decriminalized, the source dries up, and you stop the flow of people into prison.

How do you imagine marijuana being sold? Would it be in bars and restaurants and corner stores?

All of that is to be determined. We don't want it to be for anyone under 21. You still can't drive under the influence of it. But the broader thing for me is getting it decriminalized, through the law, and then coming up with the regulations.

Do you think legalizing it endorses its use?

It's use is there anyway. People do it everywhere. It's better if you have a situation, like with booze, when you regulate it. If you're smoking the legal product, you're an adult, and it's not full of pesticides, additives or other crap. The environment would benefit because a lot of these rogue plantations pollute the water source and deplete the soil. The growers pull up and walk away without any kind of remediation. You have to admit to reality here. I think everyone has been on this big denial trip.

Don't you think you're going to see resistance because of the idea that pot is a gateway drug that leads to other illicit drugs?

A lot of those issues came up around medical marijuana, and most of them were put to rest. But there are always going to be people who believe that no matter how many statistics you give them.

Would legalizing pot create new smokers?

I have no idea. But I know there are a lot of statistics around marijuana usage, and a lot of the reefer madness fears are not substantiated.

Do you really expect this bill to pass? Or do you want to spark a debate and get a conversation going?

Getting the conversation going is definitely part of it. But getting it passed is my goal. I do have support from a lot of colleagues, who say: "Oh my God, I think this is great, but I don't think I can vote for it." So it's going to be my job, even in conservative areas, to say: "Vote for it. This is something that will help your community. You may be a Republican, you may be conservative, but your health clinic just closed, your husband just go laid off." These are the kind of bread-and-butter issues that are going to be very seductive to people.

Have you smoked pot?

I certainly experimented. But I'm more of a martini guy.

What do you say to the Bill O'Reilly types who will protest that "San Francisco values" will infect the whole state and even the country?


We're a city that has done a lot of progressive things that have been beneficial on a social justice level, and the world did not end. So we have nothing to be defensive about. In fact, other countries laugh at us for our drug laws. Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and most of Europe have very liberalized drug laws in and around harm reduction.

God knows what Bill O'Reilly does. I'd hate to see his pharmacy bill.


Salon


I read about this last week but wasn't sure it's going anywhere, this really needs to be brought up in the MSM. I know a lot of us on P&N fully support legalization, even many of the hardcore conservatives.

Enough of the reefer madness, sane people of all political leanings realize it's a joke.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Not that I would partake in any of that (stuff makes me feel ill when I catch a whiff of others smoking), but this sounds reasonable. We can't be blind to reason in the war on drugs. If something doesn't work...you try something else. The tax revenue could really be a boon to the government and take the wind out of the sails of a lot of the criminal organizations selling it. Besides, you can also argue that it supports domestic agriculture against the imported stuff. Buy American! :D
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Makes perfect sense, but I don't see it passing yet. The governator would veto it even if it passed.

Something not mentioned - it would also increase tourism, ala amsterdam.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: alchemize
Makes perfect sense, but I don't see it passing yet. The governator would veto it even if it passed.

Something not mentioned - it would also increase tourism, ala amsterdam.

Except many would be tourists go back to jobs that have random or mandatory drug testing...

As to the idea - I would support legalization and taxing it. :Q Me? A Conservative supporting a NEW TAX? :Q surely I must be high...
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Mary Jane is a lot less harmful than booze and cigarettes anyways. It was the tobacco lobby that outlawed MJ during the turn of the century because it feared competition.

The US needs a sensible drug policy. Things like Ecstasy/Marijuana are fairly harmless substances. Cocaine and heroin are truly life destroying drugs that should be illegal or at least highly regulated. However, lumping the two groups together has done this country more harm than good. FFS, 1 in 31 adults are part of the prison system in large part because of ridiculous laws that lump users and dealers together. 40 years after Nixon declared War on Drugs, we have an even bigger problem than before. You simply can't win against a 15,000% return on investment. Hundreds of billion spent, thousands dead, inner cities lost to crime, gangs and poverty and what do we have to show for it? The #1 drug consuming country in the world. More drugs enter the US than ever, corrupt agencies in the government, loss of civil liberties in the name of fighting drugs, the list goes on.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Mary Jane is a lot less harmful than booze and cigarettes anyways. It was the tobacco lobby that outlawed MJ during the turn of the century because it feared competition.

The US needs a sensible drug policy. Things like Ecstasy/Marijuana are fairly harmless substances. Cocaine and heroin are truly life destroying drugs that should be illegal or at least highly regulated. However, lumping the two groups together has done this country more harm than good. FFS, 1 in 31 adults are part of the prison system in large part because of ridiculous laws that lump users and dealers together. 40 years after Nixon declared War on Drugs, we have an even bigger problem than before. You simply can't win against a 15,000% return on investment. Hundreds of billion spent, thousands dead, inner cities lost to crime, gangs and poverty and what do we have to show for it? The #1 drug consuming country in the world. More drugs enter the US than ever, corrupt agencies in the government, loss of civil liberties in the name of fighting drugs, the list goes on.

uh, you said Ecstasy was harmless? really?

yes ive done it, yes ive done pot, no way in hell is X harmless...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Makes perfect sense, but I don't see it passing yet. The governator would veto it even if it passed.

Something not mentioned - it would also increase tourism, ala amsterdam.

For a city (SF) that's the #1 tourist destination city in the US and a state with a major tourism industry... how major, well, did Nevada skyrocket in tourists because of brothels?
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
hey, the first great depression caused by republicans legalized alcohol, maybe the second one will legalize pot.
 

novasatori

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2003
3,851
1
0
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Mary Jane is a lot less harmful than booze and cigarettes anyways. It was the tobacco lobby that outlawed MJ during the turn of the century because it feared competition.

The US needs a sensible drug policy. Things like Ecstasy/Marijuana are fairly harmless substances. Cocaine and heroin are truly life destroying drugs that should be illegal or at least highly regulated. However, lumping the two groups together has done this country more harm than good. FFS, 1 in 31 adults are part of the prison system in large part because of ridiculous laws that lump users and dealers together. 40 years after Nixon declared War on Drugs, we have an even bigger problem than before. You simply can't win against a 15,000% return on investment. Hundreds of billion spent, thousands dead, inner cities lost to crime, gangs and poverty and what do we have to show for it? The #1 drug consuming country in the world. More drugs enter the US than ever, corrupt agencies in the government, loss of civil liberties in the name of fighting drugs, the list goes on.

Yeah man destroying your brain is totally harmless, amirite
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I'm againt the use of pot for the most part, and lean strongly in favor of legalization.

I have some reservations, but the weighing of the pros and cons is very strong for pro.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
I've only done Ecstasy twice but that's enough for me.

It can and will cause problems the more you use it. It damages the serotonin receptors in the brain which affects your mood, because so much serotonin is released at one time.

This is what makes you so happy, but doing it often can cause you to become permanently unbalanced with regards to your moods.

So I wouldn't support legalizing that or heroin, coke, or meth. These drugs can kill you in one dose and cause serious addictions that lead people to do crazy things in order to satiate. Treatment is the only answer.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: ayabe
I've only done Ecstasy twice but that's enough for me.

It can and will cause problems the more you use it. It damages the serotonin receptors in the brain which affects your mood, because so much serotonin is released at one time.

This is what makes you so happy, but doing it often can cause you to become permanently unbalanced with regards to your moods.

So I wouldn't support legalizing that or heroin, coke, or meth. These drugs can kill you in one dose and cause serious addictions that lead people to do crazy things in order to satiate. Treatment is the only answer.
They need to be "medicalized". Basically you need an "addict prescription" for the hard drugs. You can't slay the drug cartels without removing the profit motivation.

If you have availability to addicts, then I would support very strong penalties (which we already have) for those who are users/dealers outside the system.

Of course that's a pipe dream :laugh:
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,674
6,733
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: ayabe
I've only done Ecstasy twice but that's enough for me.

It can and will cause problems the more you use it. It damages the serotonin receptors in the brain which affects your mood, because so much serotonin is released at one time.

This is what makes you so happy, but doing it often can cause you to become permanently unbalanced with regards to your moods.

So I wouldn't support legalizing that or heroin, coke, or meth. These drugs can kill you in one dose and cause serious addictions that lead people to do crazy things in order to satiate. Treatment is the only answer.
They need to be "medicalized". Basically you need an "addict prescription" for the hard drugs. You can't slay the drug cartels without removing the profit motivation.

If you have availability to addicts, then I would support very strong penalties (which we already have) for those who are users/dealers outside the system.

Of course that's a pipe dream :laugh:

No, a pipe dream is one where society does something about the mental health issues that lead people to want drugs.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Does not matter if they make it legal, it is still against Fed law.

Well so is medical mj, but Obama stopped the raids.

It's gonna be taken off Sched I sooner rather than later.

 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Does not matter if they make it legal, it is still against Fed law.

Yeah, unfortunately SCOTUS has already ruled on it (an Interstate Commerce Clause matter).

I think even if it were to pass, SCOTUS would shoot it down on precedent.

Fern
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: smack Down
hey, the first great depression caused by republicans legalized alcohol, maybe the second one also caused by the republicans will legalize pot.
<-- corrected for accuracy!!

???

 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: JS80
What are the unintended consequences of legalizing pot?

More pollution from long lines at Taco Bell drive-thrus at 3:00am.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,568
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Does not matter if they make it legal, it is still against Fed law.

Yeah, unfortunately SCOTUS has already ruled on it (an Interstate Commerce Clause matter).

I think even if it were to pass, SCOTUS would shoot it down on precedent.

Fern

shoot down what?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Does not matter if they make it legal, it is still against Fed law.

Yeah, unfortunately SCOTUS has already ruled on it (an Interstate Commerce Clause matter).

I think even if it were to pass, SCOTUS would shoot it down on precedent.

Fern

shoot down what?

The CA bill to legalize pot.

Without going back and reviewing the SCOTUS cases, I'm guessing they are gonna say that fed law trumps state here because of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Fern
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Does not matter if they make it legal, it is still against Fed law.

Yeah, unfortunately SCOTUS has already ruled on it (an Interstate Commerce Clause matter).

I think even if it were to pass, SCOTUS would shoot it down on precedent.

Fern

shoot down what?

The CA bill to legalize pot.

Without going back and reviewing the SCOTUS cases, I'm guessing they are gonna say that fed law trumps state here because of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Fern


You need to read the thread.

I'll repeat the point another poster already made, but is ignored in your response:

While the federal law does trump the state on this, enforcement is relevant, and the Obama administration has announced a halt to medical marijuana clinic raids.

So you have a very analogous situation - CA passes its own law on marijuana, the federal law is still enforced - but won't be enforced for this presidency at least.

That means that while federal law would trump this and that's fine to say, it's not the whole story. Would this drive federal laws to change? Would federal laws be enforced?