|
The biggest unknown: Would the federal government allow marijuana markets to materialize? When California voters considered marijuana legalization in 2010, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder warned that the federal government would not look the other way and allow a state marijuana market in defiance of federal drug law. Holder vowed a month before the election to "vigorously enforce" federal marijuana prohibition. Voters rejected the measure. Holder hasn't been as vocal this year, but that could change. In early September, nine former heads of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration called on Holder to issue similar warnings to Colorado, Oregon and Washington. That political uncertainty could translate into states spending thousands of dollars to defend the laws, critics say. "I think it's important that this ballot lay out for the voters how much litigation is going to result from this," said Colorado assistant Attorney General Michael Dougherty, a critic of the legislation. Legalization proponents counter that some of the 17 medical-marijuana states already collect pot taxes in violation of federal law, which does not condone medical use of the drug. Colorado collects several million dollars a year in pot-related taxes, including sales taxes, licensing fees and fees paid by patients to acquire the drug. Oregon last year doubled the cost of a medical marijuana card to raise money for things like clean water and school health programs. "Marijuana can be regulated, can be taxed, can be sold. We're doing it now, just currently to sick people," said Vicente, the lawyer working on the Colorado legalization campaign. Backers concede there are big questions about how marijuana would be taxed and regulated, but they are hoping to sell voters on taking the chance. "We're like Star Trek. We're heading into a new world," said Art Way of the Drug Policy Alliance, answering tax questions recently posed by law students gathered at the University of Denver to learn about Colorado's initiative. In the end, voters deciding the marijuana questions won't be making up their minds based on the impact on taxes, said Miron, the Harvard economist. "It's small potatoes," Miron said of marijuana's tax implications. "I'm as firmly in the pro-legalization camp as anybody in the world, but it's because I think smoking marijuana is not the government's business. "That is the question -- not whether it will produce revenue, but whether these drugs should be legal."
[Associated
Press;
Cooper reported from Salem, Ore.
Follow Kristen Wyatt at http://twitter.com/APkristenwyatt.
Copyright 2012 The Associated
Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor