By Amanda Waldroupe, Staff Writer
Oregon Rep. Peter Buckley (D-Ashland) wants to make Oregon “black marketless,” help end the War on Drugs, and generate up to $80 million in revenue. And he intends to do it by legalizing marijuana.
Buckley intends to introduce the Oregon Cannabis Revenue Act during the upcoming state Legislative session in January. The law would legalize marijuana in Oregon for people over the age of 21 and allow people to grow their own marijuana. A new office within the Department of Agriculture would provide oversight and regulation, and the state would collect revenue from taxing the drug.
Buckley thinks as much as $80 million could be collected from the taxes. That extra revenue could provide a sorely needed shot in the arm to Oregon’s anemic budget, which is suffering from a projected $3 billion shortfall. “I’m trying desperately to keep programs for Oregonians intact,” says Buckley, who co-chairs the state’s Ways and Means Committee. “The idea that we are spending money (on enforcing marijuana prohibition laws) and ending programs for Oregonians drives me nuts.”
His law closely mirrors legislation supported by activist Melodie Silverwolf and Madeline Martinez, executive director of Oregon NORML, who have sought multiple times to collect enough signatures to put a measure on the ballot legalizing marijuana.
Buckley’s increased motivation to legalize marijuana comes at a time when marijuana is becoming a growing concern in southern Oregon and northern California. In May, the Oregon Business Magazine reported that in southern Oregon, law enforcement considers the growth of marijuana in public lands, and activities and crimes associated with it, at epidemic levels.
And marijuana laws are being considered in both states. On Nov. 2, Oregonians will vote on Measure 74, which would expand regulation of Oregon’s medical marijuana dispensaries (Oregon approved the use of medical marijuana in 1998 and is among only 14 states to have done so). Californians will be voting on Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana in their state. Earlier this month, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill that reduces the charge for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction.
How California votes on Prop 19 is the biggest deciding factor for Buckley as he considers introducing his legislation. If Californians pass the law, Buckley thinks it will create enough traction for a similar law in Oregon.
To Buckley, deciding whether to legalize marijuana comes down to common sense and having a rational discussion about the continued impact on society of ineffectively illegalizing drugs.
Amanda Waldroupe: Why doesn’t prohibition work?
Peter Buckley: It’s never made sense to me. We’re spending much too much of our resources and energy in trying to stop people from using a substance they want to use and that grows naturally in a garden. You could always make the comparison to alcohol. Prohibition didn’t work, and it caused more harm than good. The war on drugs has, in general, caused more harm than good. If we had legalization and education about what drugs do to people and the consequences of using them, we would be far more effective.
A.W.: I can think of another plant that grows naturally in our gardens — poppies, which make heroin. Are you saying that heroin should be legal, too? There is the old argument that government should legalize all drugs and tax them heavily. In your mind, is this a beginning to doing that?
P.B.: I think that is a more rational approach. But there is a difference between marijuana and heroin. Heroin can kill you. Flat out. It has a track record of ruining lives. Whereas with marijuana, I don’t think you could point to anything close to that impact. It doesn’t make sense for the government to be involved in stopping people from engaging in behavior that does not damage any other person. It is okay for us to regulate that behavior when it does hurt other people. And the black market in illicit drugs hurts other people.
While I believe drug abuse is a medical problem, not a legal problem, American society is not ready to legalize all drugs.
A.W.: How does the black market hurt people?
P.B.: It hurts everyone who pays taxes, in which people make revenue and don’t pay taxes. That is an unfair system. It also puts people in positions where violence is used. We have the Mexican drug cartels using our federal forest lands as miniature pot plantations. Families can’t go on hikes, and hunters can’t go into the forest.
A.W.: You have said that introducing your legislation is largely dependent on how Californians vote on Prop 19. Why are you looking at what happens with Prop 19, and not Oregon’s Measure 74?
P.B.: The vote on 74 is not going to be a clear vote in terms of how people look at the legalization of marijuana. That will look at the medical marijuana program. Prop 19 is a legalization measure that directly looks at the black market issue. (If Prop 19 passes) the largest black market on the West Coast disappears overnight. I would like to see the black market disappear in Oregon, as well. Oregon could be a black marketless zone.
A.W.: Do you think that’s possible?
P.B.: Yeah, I do.
A.W.: Could illegal sellers simply make their prices cheaper, as a way of essentially competing with the state?
P.B.: It’s possible. The RAND Institute put out a study that estimated, if the California measure passes, the cost will drop by 80 percent. In terms of the cash incentives of the black market, they would disappear overnight. If the black market folks want to come down 80percent of their prices, that would still be illegal. Or they could undersell the legal marijuana, but they would take a legal risk, and they would not be able to make a lucrative living. The cartels would take a huge loss in terms of their ability to financially thrive through the growth and distribution of marijuana.
A.W.: You want to have a rational discussion about marijuana. What does a rational discussion entail?
P.B.: I mean that we have to look at how prohibition has worked. How has it not worked? How much are we spending to keep it illegal, versus how much would we may be able to realize in revenue? What are the societal negatives and positives for legalizing? You have to come down on the positives outweighing the negatives, if you look at it rationally. If you look at it with the stereotypes involved, or fear, you would stick to the status quo. Because there is such a stereotype about marijuana, it’s hard for people to get to a place to look at it rationally.
A.W.: How has pot been stereotyped?
P.B.: It’s the stoner persona. Marijuana is used by slackers who only want to sit around all day and smoke dope and play videogames. If we legalize pot, the only thing we’re going to do is increase the amount of people who are slackers who only want to sit around all day and smoke dope and play videogames. There’s estimates that one third of the adults in Oregon have tried marijuana. But you would be hard pressed to find a third of the population that are slackers who only want to sit around all day and smoke dope and play videogames.
A.W.: Have you smoked marijuana?
P.B.: I smoked marijuana when I was a kid. And when I was a young adult — most of my 20s and 30s, I worked in a movie theater. And you would smoke marijuana with other people. I don’t smoke marijuana now.
A.W.: Opponents say you can’t sin-tax your way out of a problem.
P.B.: I would agree. Absolutely. But you can sin tax your way to generate enough revenue to fund drug and alcohol programs, which aren’t fully funded. You can’t incarcerate your way out of a problem, either.
A.W.: How much money would be generated by legalizing marijuana in Oregon?
P.B.: A CATO Institute study indicated that nationwide, $8 billion would be generated. Oregon is usually 10 percent of a nationwide figure like that. So, around $80 million a year for Oregon.
A.W.: Oregon is facing an estimated $3 billion shortfall in its next budget cycle. How would $80 million help?
P.B.: $80 million is a significant amount. We’re still a fairly small state. $80 million would pay for two days of K-12 education in the entire state. If it all went to drug and alcohol treatment programs, it would substantially expand those programs. Oregon Project Independence costs $13 million for the biennium. We could fully fund Head Start. We have only about 60 percent of the kids eligible (for Head Start) in that program.
A.W.: Is it possible that at least some of the revenue generated from selling and taxing marijuana could go to funding affordable housing for low-income or formerly homeless people?
P.B.: Yes, the revenue could be used for whatever purpose the legislature decides, or the people decide through the initiative process, if so desired. My personal hope is that the funding will go to education, drug and alcohol rehab, and mental health programs.
A.W.: The Oregon Cannabis Tax Act failed to collect enough signatures to get on the ballot this year. What makes you think there is support for your legislation?
P.B.: You can’t get anything on the ballot without hiring signature gatherers. They started very late (and) had no financial resources.
A.W.: If Chris Dudley, the Republican nominee running for governor against Democratic nominee John Kitzhaber, wins the governor’s race, or if there is a Republican majority in the Legislature, how would your legislation be impacted?
P.B.: I would seriously think that we would not be able to move this forward.
A.W.: So support is coming mainly from Democrats.
P.B.: There have been some Republican colleagues who look at it from the Libertarian point of view, that government does not have the right to interfere in people’s lives. I shouldn’t make that assumption. I don’t know where Dudley stands on this, but if a proposal came forward that seemed reasonable to him and raised revenue, there might be at least consideration for it. But it is much more likely that it would get referred to the voters than passed in the Legislature.
A.W.: How would a state law ending prohibition on marijuana rub up against federal laws that still consider it a crime?
P.B.: We passed a bill in 2009 that will allow for hemp production in the state of Oregon. It passed with bipartisan support, but we are looking at the federal government and whether they will let us proceed. So far, the answer is no. The federal government could very well contest this. It could be in the courts for a while. The problems associated with prohibition aren’t going to end overnight. We’re in for a long run of it.