West Hollywood City Councilman John Duran officially endorsed a ballot initiative on Monday that would legalize marijuana and enact a tax on the drug in California.

West Hollywood City Councilman John Duran and Dale Sky Clare, a spokesperson for the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, discussed the initiative during a press conference Monday at West Hollywood City Hall.

Duran joined Dale Sky Clare, a spokesperson for the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, who announced that the initiative has gained more than the 433,971 signatures necessary to qualify it for the November ballot. Shannan Velayas, a spokesperson for the California Secretary of State’s Office, said that seven counties, including Los Angeles, are still verifying the signatures, which is required before the initiative is placed on the ballot. As of Wednesday, approximately 351,350 signatures had been verified. The signature verification would be completed by March 24, Velayas said.

The initiative seeks to regulate marijuana like alcohol, allowing licensed retail establishments to sell up to one ounce of marijuana to people who are 21 and older. It would also allow people who are 21 and older to purchase, transport, cultivate and possess up to one ounce of marijuana. The State of California and local jurisdictions would have the power to tax marijuana, potentially generating $1.4 to $1.8 billion annually, according to Clare. Local jurisdictions could also opt out of allowing the initiative to apply in their areas, similar to alcohol regulation in states where some cities and counties allow sales, while others do not.

“We have turned in more than 700,000 signatures of California residents who agree that the current policy has failed,” Clare said. “We have an opportunity to tax marijuana like alcohol, and direct these resources to what matters most.”

Clare said the tax money generated could help erase budget deficits that currently beleaguer the state and many local governments, and could be used for important programs such as education and healthcare. She said the decriminalization of marijuana would also free up law enforcement resources currently dedicated to eradicating marijuana, and would ensure people convicted of minor offenses relating to marijuana would not be sentenced to prison, freeing up space for violent offenders.

Duran said that contrary to some people’s belief, marijuana is not a “gateway” drug that leads to the use of more dangerous substances. He called on the federal government to take marijuana off the Drug Enforcement Agency’s list of controlled substances. Duran also said marijuana is less harmful than tobacco, which is readily available in retail stores, and added that he bases his viewpoint on his own past marijuana use.

“I haven’t had a drink or a marijuana cigarette in 13 years, but I definitely inhaled,” Duran said. “This campaign is about telling the truth about marijuana use. We are in a place where we have multiple generations that have tried marijuana, and they realize it doesn’t cause refer madness, and that it doesn’t lead to other drugs. There are a lot of falsehoods about marijuana use that need to be addressed.”

Even if the initiative is passed by California voters, marijuana would remain illegal under federal law. But Duran and Clare said the U.S. Constitution allows states to enact laws regarding public safety, health and public welfare, and they believe a voter approved initiative could withstand legal challenges.

Some opposition has arisen to the initiative, including from D.A.R.E. America, whose representatives believe marijuana is a dangerous addictive substance. Skip Miller, a Century City-based attorney and chairman for D.A.R.E., wrote an editorial published in January stating that legalized marijuana could lead to more widespread abuse.

“Two beliefs drive this push to make pot legal, that new tax revenue will stave off deeper budget cuts and that marijuana is a relatively benign drug. Neither is true,” Miller stated. “Legalization almost certainly would bring with it additional substance abuse in the state, and the long-term public costs associated with that would vastly exceed the relatively modest amount of new revenue legal weed might bring in.”