Why Seattle Could "Legalize It"--for the Tax Money

"Here's the way I see it," said our legal correspondent over lunch, "the City Council sends a representative to the state legislature and asks that municipalities be given the choice to opt out of state enforcement." We were talking about legalizing marijuana, but not from any personal interest. (I prefer a smoky Scotch.) We were looking for "new revenue" responses to the state's fiscal crisis.

Raising property taxes is a nonstarter. Upping sales taxes is not only infeasible politically, but leaves the state dangerously dependent on consumer confidence. No one but budget policy wonks is still pushing an income tax. But there is a huge hole in the state budget that is cutting into essential services, and the future only looks to bring reassessed, post-bubble property values.

In Olympia, the political will for decriminalization is almost there--in Seattle, it's already been elected. Mayor-elect Mike McGinn told KUOW recently that "We recognize that, like alcohol, it's something that should be regulated not treated as a criminal activity and I think that's where the citizens of Seattle want us to go." ("Legalize marijuana and tax it" is the number two entry on the Ideas for Seattle website.)

On December 14, the Seattle City Council unanimously passed a resolution in support of SB 5615 and HB 1177, bills decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, which were introduced by Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles and Rep. Dave Upthegrove.

"We support reclassifying possession of small amounts of marijuana from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction," is the Council's word on the matter (video), putting possession in the realm of jaywalking in terms of public safety priorities. Under Kohl-Welles bill, possession would draw a fine of $100, but no jail time.

Wrote the senator in an op-ed: "Our state Office of Financial Management reported annual savings of $16 million and $1 million in new revenue if SB 5615 passes. Of that $1 million, $590,000 would be earmarked for the Washington State Criminal Justice Treatment Account to increase support of our underfunded drug treatment and prevention services."

State Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson takes it even further, reports Publicola:

Dickerson wants Washington farmers to grow pot and sell it in our state’s liquor stores. The revenue, she says, will go to pay for drug and alcohol treatment programs (and to cover the WSLCB’s costs for adding the new product to its shelves.) She estimates the revenues from pot sales would be similar to booze sale revenues, which are currently at $330 million.

Dickerson says she doesn't expect her bill to pass, but that she wants to start a federal conversation about the legalization and regulation of marijuana. Other states--Rhode Island recently--have been following the lead of their major cities in wrestling with decriminalization.

Why the major cities? Either we're permissive dens of iniquity--or we're just tired of being stuck with the bill. Again, from Kohl-Welles' op-ed: "From 1991 to 2007, marijuana arrests nationwide tripled from 287,900 to a record 872,720, comprising 47 percent of all drug arrests combined. Of those, 89 percent were for possession only."

Speaking to State Legislatures Magazine, Rep. Roger Goodman emphasized the costs of incarceration:

Washington has a corrections budget of about $1 billion a year. We have one of the lower incarceration rates, and a high supervision rate. [...] We have now converted one of our prisons to a special facility for parole violators, and I agree it wastes our resources to lock up people who are not a threat. We have a lot of people in prison for drug crimes and not enough treatment available. And we also have racial disparities in Washington, with 30 percent of our prisoners African American, while African Americans are only 3 percent of our population.

That said, a pragmatist, like our legal correspondent, would point out that some communities have a strong moral revulsion when it comes to drug use, and don't have huge populations of potheads clogging their jails. (What's in effect may be a rural "Don't ask, don't tell"--it's not necessary to codify behavior so rigorously when your nearest neighbor is a few miles away.)

They have no particular incentive to legalize marijuana use, even as a matter of principle. That's why it makes sense to ask the legislature for city-level discretion. If Seattle wants to open pot cafés, that's no skin off Burien's or Everett's nose. (There are still hundreds of dry counties across the U.S., after all.)

There still remains the federal case against city or state legalization--which so far has trumped even state-level legislation allowing medical marijuana use. But the "opt-out" approach allows for compromise based on differing social mores, and if we have learned nothing else from the health care debate, the federal government loves the thrill of compromise.