| Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act | |
|---|---|
 | |
| California State Legislature | |
| |
| Enacted by | California State Legislature |
| Introduced by | Tom Ammiano (D-13th-San Francisco) |
TheMarijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act, also known asCalifornia Assembly Bill 390 (A.B. 390) and laterAssembly Bill 2254 (A.B. 2254), is the first bill ever introduced toregulate the sale and use ofmarijuana in theU.S. state ofCalifornia.[1] If passed and signed into law, marijuana would be sold and taxed openly to adults age 21 and older in California.Tom Ammiano, aDemocrat representingCalifornia's 13th State Assembly district, introduced this piece of legislation on February 23, 2009, arguing that the bill will "tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol."[2][3] As introduced, this proposal is estimated to raise over $1 billion in annual revenue by taxing the retail production and sale of marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older. To obtain a commercial grow license one would pay an initial $5,000 fee, then a $2,500 fee each year after that. A tariff of $50 per ounce would also be placed on all sold and grown marijuana.[1][4] The bill has gained much media attention, statewide and nationally.
The bill was not approved by the Health Committee before a January 15 deadline, effectively killing the bill until it was reintroduced in 2010 as A.B. 2254 and the process continued.[5]
Recent polls say 56% of Californians favor taxing and regulating marijuana.[citation needed] In November 2010, the failedProposition 19 was posed to Californian voters, and would have effectively made possession and cultivation of marijuana legal for citizens over the age of 21. The bill was reintroduced as Marijuana Control and Regulation Act of 2010 in slightly different form as Assembly Bill 9[6]
DemocratTom Ammiano from the California State Assembly's 13th district, introduced the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act during theCalifornia budget crisis. The bill is designed to raise revenue for the state, but it also provides funding for the education of discouraging substance abuse, as mentioned in the name. As Mr. Ammiano introduced the bill, he is quoted saying:
With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes. ...California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana.[3]
AUC Santa Cruz study shows that people living in Cannabis-tolerant cities likeAmsterdam andSan Francisco are no more or less likely to use the drug.[7] Prominent economists, specificallyJeffrey Miron,[8] support the regulation ofCannabis due to the heavy violence across the U.S. and Mexico border. Economists argue that regulation would put infamous drug cartels, especiallyLos Zetas, out of business, improve safety standards and allow for more open research about the drug.
Cannabis is also believed to be California's number onecash crop. In California, marijuana is a $14-billionblack market, putting it above vegetables ($5.7 billion) and grapes ($2.6 billion).[4] AB 390 is projected to allow an additional economic benefit of $12 –18 billion.[9]
A.B. 390
A.B. 2254
Information about the bill, including current status and history, can be found onCalifornia's Legislative Website.
| Propositions |  | |
|---|---|---|
| California Senate Bills | California Senate Bill 420 (2003) | |
| California Assembly Bills | ||
| Related | ||
| General | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Usage |
| ||||||||
| Variants | |||||||||
| Effects | |||||||||
| Culture | |||||||||
| Organizations |
| ||||||||
| Demographics | |||||||||
| Politics |
| ||||||||
| Related | |||||||||
