PDA

View Full Version : Marijuana to the rescue - California moves to legalize, tax recreational pot


Taco John
02-24-2009, 02:06 PM
Taxing pot could become a political toking point

An Assemblyman from San Francisco argues that it's time to tax and regulate the state's biggest cash crop in the same manner as alcohol. Opponents say it would create new costs for society.

By Eric Bailey
February 24, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento -- Could Cannabis sativa be a salvation for California's fiscal misfortunes? Can the state get a better budget grip by taxing what some folks toke?

An assemblyman from San Francisco announced legislation Monday to do just that: make California the first state in the nation to tax and regulate recreational marijuana in the same manner as alcohol.
Buoyed by the widely held belief that cannabis is California's biggest cash crop, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano contends it is time to reap some state revenue from that harvest while putting a damper on drug use by teens, cutting police costs and even helping Mother Nature.

"I know the jokes are going to be coming, but this is not a frivolous issue," said Ammiano, a Democrat elected in November after more than a dozen years as a San Francisco supervisor. "California always takes the lead -- on gay marriage, the sanctuary movement, medical marijuana."

Anti-drug groups are anything but amused by the idea of California collecting a windfall from the leafy herb that remains illegal under federal law.


"This would open another door in Pandora's box," said Calvina Fay, executive director of Save Our Society From Drugs. "Legalizing drugs like this would create a whole new set of costs for society."

Ammiano's measure, AB 390, would essentially replicate the regulatory structure used for beer, wine and hard liquor, with taxed sales barred to anyone under 21.

He said it would actually boost public safety, keeping law enforcement focused on more serious crimes while keeping marijuana away from teenagers who can readily purchase black-market pot from peers.

The natural world would benefit, too, from the uprooting of environmentally destructive backcountry pot plantations that denude fragile ecosystems, Ammiano said.

But the biggest boon might be to the bottom line. By some estimates, California's pot crop is a $14-billion industry, putting it above vegetables ($5.7 billion) and grapes ($2.6 billion). If so, that could mean upward of $1 billion in tax revenue for the state each year.

"Having just closed a $42-billion budget deficit, generating new revenue is crucial to the state's long-term fiscal health," said Betty Yee, the state Board of Equalization chairwoman who appeared with Ammiano at a San Francisco news conference.

Also in support of opening debate on the issue are San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey and retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray, a longtime legalization proponent.

"I'm a martini guy myself," Ammiano said. "But I think it's time for California to . . . look at this in a truly deliberative fashion."

He sees the possibility of an eventual truce in the marijuana wars with Barack Obama now in the White House.

A White House spokesman declined to discuss Ammiano's legislation, instead pointing to a transition website that says the president "is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana."

Several cities in California and around the nation have adopted laws making marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority, including Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Denver and Seattle.

Oakland went even further in 2004, requiring pot to be taxed if it is legalized.

But where Ammiano sees taxes, pot foes see trouble.

They say easier access means more problems with drug dependency among adults, heavier teen use and an increase in driving while high.

"If we think the drug cartels are going to tuck their tails between their legs and go home, I think we're badly mistaken," Fay said.

"They're going to heavily target our children."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pottax24-2009feb24,0,7534269.story

Taco John
02-24-2009, 02:10 PM
I have little doubt that California will do this, considering the budget mess they're in. Any money coming in the door will be welcome money.

I'm curious how the Feds will respond.

Pseudofool
02-24-2009, 02:12 PM
About time.

Pseudofool
02-24-2009, 02:12 PM
I'm curious how the Feds will respond.This falls under the Department of Justice correct? If so, I imagine they won't respond at all, or at least not in any kind of timely matter.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 02:17 PM
It won't happen because Arnold will veto it and they won't have enough support to overturn it.

Arnold would not even sign a bill that said medical marijuana patients can't be fired if they have doctors permission to smoke it. No way he signs this bill even if it passed.

I would be very surprised if it passed.

Plus it wouldn't raise revenue the price would drop to really cheap if it was legal. It makes more money for california into the economy by being illegal.

Not to mention feds would probably withhold funds if they did it.

broncosteven
02-24-2009, 02:23 PM
Didn't this happen on season 3 of "The Wire"?

Tombstone RJ
02-24-2009, 02:25 PM
I say go for it. The government, from local municipalities to the feds, have been battling this issue for years and it's not getting better. Prisons and jails are filling up with what I would considere minor offenders, and its not getting better.

Its the casual offenders that make up the bulk of the mari-jah-wana users. It's the guys who smoke some pot on the weekends when they go fishing that are the main consumers (for example).

Its a tough issue all around, but a new way of dealing with it must be adopted. Let Cali take the plunge.

Tombstone RJ
02-24-2009, 02:27 PM
It won't happen because Arnold will veto it and they won't have enough support to overturn it.

Arnold would not even sign a bill that said medical marijuana patients can't be fired if they have doctors permission to smoke it. No way he signs this bill even if it passed.

I would be very surprised if it passed.

Plus it wouldn't raise revenue the price would drop to really cheap if it was legal. It makes more money for california into the economy by being illegal.

Not to mention feds would probably withhold funds if they did it.

Arnold's state is broke. Flat out broke. Arnold needs money, the state needs money.

It's an interesting delimma.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 02:33 PM
Arnold's state is broke. Flat out broke. Arnold needs money, the state needs money.

It's an interesting delimma.

The thing is all the money generated by Californians already supports tons of the states economy. By legalizing the price would drop so far that the state would make less. For one its still illegal everywhere else so no exports really. That money already being spent in the state by the people who grow it and sell it there. They go and spend all that money like little mini stimulus packages every harvest.

Legalizing would drop the price, add to the income tax revenue, but the total amount of money generated would be far less then it is now.

Best thing is decriminalize the small amounts but keep it illegal so the price stays high.

Taco John
02-24-2009, 02:36 PM
It won't happen because Arnold will veto it and they won't have enough support to overturn it.



I don't know... Arnold has taken to pan handling on the Sunday shows for other state's money. I don't think he'd refuse the cash stream if it got past the legislature.

Of course, I think his loopy ideas of presidential aspirations cloud his judgement, so it's hard to say what the man will do.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 02:38 PM
people aren't seeing the whole picture when they consider only income tax the way an economy can generate revenue. California already reaping the rewards of a huge marijuana industry.

Watch the show Marijuana Nation, I was shocked at how big it already is and how much money govt already making off it. I think they know if they legalize all the way it would actually generate less money for the state overall.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2009, 02:40 PM
This falls under the Department of Justice correct? If so, I imagine they won't respond at all, or at least not in any kind of timely matter.

Under the Tenth Amendment the Federal Government has no right to tell California what they can do on this issue within it's borders.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 02:40 PM
I don't know... Arnold has taken to pan handling on the Sunday shows for other state's money. I don't think he'd refuse the cash stream if it got past the legislature.

Of course, I think his loopy ideas of presidential aspirations cloud his judgement, so it's hard to say what the man will do.

I'm telling you people smarter then us probably crunched those numbers, and when they see how cheap weed would be if legal they probably figure its better having it illegal, and getting that money into the economy that way. By dealers and medical shops making a ton of money, spending it in calif, and getting the sales tax. Also those people having money is a boost to the local economies.

epicSocialism4tw
02-24-2009, 02:40 PM
It may be doomed to fail if those idiots in San Fran propose it, as they are the most polarizing bunch of idiots in the nation.

However, a new generation of Americans sees pot as an equivalent alternative to alcohol (maybe even a better alternative), and many have tried it. I would say that its an inevitability until someone from a new generation of politicians proposes the idea and it is supported wholesale.

The reefer madness-esque propaganda doest scare modern citizens of voting age, as most people have used it or know people who have that they respect.

Popps
02-24-2009, 02:40 PM
I have little doubt that California will do this, considering the budget mess they're in. Any money coming in the door will be welcome money.

I'm curious how the Feds will respond.

Did you catch the CNBC special recently? I think it's called Pot Nation or something like that. Basically, Cali is doing well over a billion a year under the table. I can't imagine how much could be produced and sold if legally.

I have severe reservations about it, but I think it's probably the thing to do
It's a gray area much like Alcohol, and people just don't seem to want to live without it.

I don't smoke, but I can understand the appeal. Beyond that, I can't understand the massive resources we put into trying to stop it, and the endless violence related to the illegal trade.

Illegal trade also ****s with the environment in many ways, as well.

I think people might have to put aside their view on the drug itself and look at the bigger picture, here.

Hallside
02-24-2009, 02:41 PM
The thing is all the money generated by Californians already supports tons of the states economy. By legalizing the price would drop so far that the state would make less. For one its still illegal everywhere else so no exports really. That money already being spent in the state by the people who grow it and sell it there. They go and spend all that money like little mini stimulus packages every harvest.

Legalizing would drop the price, add to the income tax revenue, but the total amount of money generated would be far less then it is now.

Best thing is decriminalize the small amounts but keep it illegal so the price stays high.

You seem very intent on protecting the revenue stream of smugglers and gangsters.

I don't know where you got your econ degree, but artificially high prices (of anything) will not result in wealth creation--just the opposite.

But, you're so far off base in your economic thinking that I don't think this little technical correction will help you at all.

epicSocialism4tw
02-24-2009, 02:42 PM
Did you catch the CNBC special recently? I think it's called Pot Nation or something like that. Basically, Cali is doing well over a billion a year under the table. I can't imagine how much could be produced and sold if legally.

I have severe reservations about it, but I think it's probably the thing to do
It's a gray area much like Alcohol, and people just don't seem to want to live without it.

I don't smoke, but I can understand the appeal. Beyond that, I can't understand the massive resources we put into trying to stop it, and the endless violence related to the illegal trade.

Illegal trade also ****s with the environment in many ways, as well.

I think people might have to put aside their view on the drug itself and look at the bigger picture, here.

...including the toll that marijuana laws take on our legal system.

Florida_Bronco
02-24-2009, 02:44 PM
Under the Ten Amendment the Federal Government has no right to tell California what they can do on this issue within it's borders.

They can sure withhold funding to the states though, can't they.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2009, 02:46 PM
They can sure withhold funding to the states though, can't they.

And the State can inturn refuse to give them the money in the first place. If we legalize some of these drugs we can get rid a portion of law enforcment and they can go back to investigating real crimes. It decreases part of our prison population as well.

Tombstone RJ
02-24-2009, 02:47 PM
The thing is all the money generated by Californians already supports tons of the states economy. By legalizing the price would drop so far that the state would make less. For one its still illegal everywhere else so no exports really. That money already being spent in the state by the people who grow it and sell it there. They go and spend all that money like little mini stimulus packages every harvest.

Legalizing would drop the price, add to the income tax revenue, but the total amount of money generated would be far less then it is now.

Best thing is decriminalize the small amounts but keep it illegal so the price stays high.

Good points, very valid.

However, it might become an export to other countries. Also, the hemp industry as a whole could really take off and that could create mega exports in the textiles industry, to food industry and the raw materials (energy) industry.

Ya never know...

Beantown Bronco
02-24-2009, 02:47 PM
The thing is all the money generated by Californians already supports tons of the states economy. By legalizing the price would drop so far that the state would make less. For one its still illegal everywhere else so no exports really. That money already being spent in the state by the people who grow it and sell it there. They go and spend all that money like little mini stimulus packages every harvest.

Legalizing would drop the price, add to the income tax revenue, but the total amount of money generated would be far less then it is now.

Best thing is decriminalize the small amounts but keep it illegal so the price stays high.

Even if true, which it isn't necessarily, you are ignoring all the other monetary benefits in terms of SAVED money. Taxpayers would easily save billions in court costs and prison costs. People have no concept of how much money is spent on prosecuting these cases every year. This is hidden revenue and we're not talking chump change here.

Tombstone RJ
02-24-2009, 02:48 PM
I don't know... Arnold has taken to pan handling on the Sunday shows for other state's money. I don't think he'd refuse the cash stream if it got past the legislature.

Of course, I think his loopy ideas of presidential aspirations cloud his judgement, so it's hard to say what the man will do.

I don't think he can ever become President of the US because he was not born in the USA, which I believe, is a prerequisite(sp?) for the position.

Florida_Bronco
02-24-2009, 02:52 PM
And the State can inturn refuse to give them the money in the first place. California doesn't have the backbone to do that.

If we legalize some of these drugs we can get rid a portion of law enforcment and they can go back to investigating real crimes. Negative.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-24-2009, 02:55 PM
Its pretty much legal here anyway. Just get a prescip and say you have a headache....then go to the weed store

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2009, 02:55 PM
I don't think he can ever become President of the US because he was not born in the USA, which I believe, is a prerequisite(sp?) for the position.

He can't without a constitutional amendment

Tombstone RJ
02-24-2009, 02:56 PM
They can sure withhold funding to the states though, can't they.

Correct. The feds can say basically: "if you don't play by our rules, you will not receive federal funds."

Its the way the feds hold the states hostage on many issues. I hate it.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2009, 02:58 PM
Negative.

How so? Especially in states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, California, New Mexico, and LA. Take the economy out for the drug cartels. Probably after 10 years we could reduce the DEA, FBI, and local law enforcement. MAybe even the Coast Guard.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2009, 02:59 PM
Correct. The feds can say basically: "if you don't play by our rules, you will not receive federal funds."

Its the way the feds hold the states hostage on many issues. I hate it.

But then the States can with hold the funds. You guys forget that the Feds get the money from the people in the States to begin with. It's the corner stone of our bloated Federal Government problem.

broncocalijohn
02-24-2009, 03:04 PM
It won't happen because Arnold will veto it and they won't have enough support to overturn it.

Arnold would not even sign a bill that said medical marijuana patients can't be fired if they have doctors permission to smoke it. No way he signs this bill even if it passed.

I would be very surprised if it passed.

Plus it wouldn't raise revenue the price would drop to really cheap if it was legal. It makes more money for california into the economy by being illegal.

Not to mention feds would probably withhold funds if they did it.

Why dont you tell us all what jobs they cant be fired from. Public safety and the marijuana/doctor's note is a complete joke. My cousin has one of those medical cards for pot and the only problem she has is she is too lazy, a bitch and likes to try to live off my Grandfather's hard earned money. It probably says gloucoma on the card. She has trouble seeing or finding a job.

Florida_Bronco
02-24-2009, 03:07 PM
How so? Especially in states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, California, New Mexico, and LA. Take the economy out for the drug cartels. Probably after 10 years we could reduce the DEA, FBI, and local law enforcement. MAybe even the Coast Guard.

You don't really use your head, do you?

You do understand that there are many other drugs out there, right? Legalize pot and law enforcement will just have one less drug to go after. It's not going to reduce the size of the agencies in the slightest.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 03:07 PM
Even if true, which it isn't necessarily, you are ignoring all the other monetary benefits in terms of SAVED money. Taxpayers would easily save billions in court costs and prison costs. People have no concept of how much money is spent on prosecuting these cases every year. This is hidden revenue and we're not talking chump change here.

thats why i say decriminalize so when busted smoking it people don't go to prison. Growing you keep illegal, consumption you don't. That way price stays high, money gets spent in calif economy, police still can bust big growers, but maybe even those growers get off rather easy. Like a yr or so in prison.

That way just enough to keep most people out of the business, but not so easy everyone will do it driving price down.

By not busting users consumption will rise, price will stay high, it will continue to generate tons for the state.

epicSocialism4tw
02-24-2009, 03:08 PM
You don't really use your head, do you?

You do understand that there are many other drugs out there, right? Legalize pot and law enforcement will just have one less drug to go after. It's not going to reduce the size of the agencies in the slightest.

Marijuana is the most widely used of all illegal drugs.

epicSocialism4tw
02-24-2009, 03:10 PM
thats why i say decriminalize so when busted smoking it people don't go to prison. Growing you keep illegal, consumption you don't. That way price stays high, money gets spent in calif economy, police still can bust big growers, but maybe even those growers get off rather easy. Like a yr or so in prison.

That way just enough to keep most people out of the business, but not so easy everyone will do it driving price down.

By not busting users consumption will rise, price will stay high, it will continue to generate tons for the state.


Why would you make growing illegal? This is a cosmopolitan species of plant for goodness' sake, which is one of the reasons that many think it silly to criminalize it. If it werent illegal, it would likely be growing in your neighborhood.

broncosteven
02-24-2009, 03:10 PM
How would this alter the Job screen testing?

At least here in IL they make you go for a drug screen before you get a job. Will they take Pot off this list of tested substances or stop all testing?

Will sport players be allowed to blow weed in Cali but not on the road?

Lots of questions...

Tombstone RJ
02-24-2009, 03:10 PM
But then the States can with hold the funds. You guys forget that the Feds get the money from the people in the States to begin with. It's the corner stone of our bloated Federal Government problem.

I don't know how a state could withhold federal tax dollars. It's federal tax dollars. What can the state do to stop that? Federal payroll taxes, federal sales taxes, etc. I'm just not sure how you stop that.

I guess the state can some how make those taxes dissappear...

Los Broncos
02-24-2009, 03:14 PM
I will boke a smole tonight.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2009, 03:14 PM
You don't really use your head, do you?

You do understand that there are many other drugs out there, right? Legalize pot and law enforcement will just have one less drug to go after. It's not going to reduce the size of the agencies in the slightest.

I would legalize them all short Opium, PCP, and Meth. But yes it would reduce them. Add more technology on the street for traffic citations and we can decrese law enforcment further. Now we get reduce taxes even further because we don't need no more stinkin badges.

SureShot
02-24-2009, 03:15 PM
I just bought a thousand shares in Doritos.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 03:15 PM
Good points, very valid.

However, it might become an export to other countries. Also, the hemp industry as a whole could really take off and that could create mega exports in the textiles industry, to food industry and the raw materials (energy) industry.

Ya never know...

most countries have way stricter laws then we do in regard to marijuana. I think most of what is grown in california is consumed here, and then also smuggled to other states where growing weed has a harsher punishment. .

Then I would say Florida probably next biggest state for weed and the prob send it all over the south and all the way to NY etc.

Other countries do have hemp production but I dont think that is super lucrative. Still farmers should have the choice for hemp, thats a no brainer. Hemp has no drug uses whatsoever.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2009, 03:16 PM
I don't know how a state could withhold federal tax dollars. It's federal tax dollars. What can the state do to stop that? Federal payroll taxes, federal sales taxes, etc. I'm just not sure how you stop that.

I guess the state can some how make those taxes dissappear...

Tell'em to **** off to put it bluntly. What are they gonna do? Declare war on the states? Park tanks outside of state legislatures? Nope. We have the power. Not the Feds. More people need to realize this.

broncosteven
02-24-2009, 03:17 PM
I don't know how a state could withhold federal tax dollars. It's federal tax dollars. What can the state do to stop that? Federal payroll taxes, federal sales taxes, etc. I'm just not sure how you stop that.

I guess the state can some how make those taxes dissappear...

Wasn't Cali supposed to have slipped into the sea by now?

footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2009, 03:18 PM
I haven't smoked weed in 30 years, but even I know this makes sense. Interdiction and the crime it causes as well as the costs of incarceration plus the built in excuse the feds have for abusing power due to the drug laws...all these things should have been learned in prohibition.

Legalize it, tax it...plug the money into treatment programs.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 03:19 PM
Why would you make growing illegal? This is a cosmopolitan species of plant for goodness' sake, which is one of the reasons that many think it silly to criminalize it. If it werent illegal, it would likely be growing in your neighborhood.

I wouldn't mind it legal but we were discussing how Marijuana generates revenue. My point is if you made it legal in calif, the price would drop, and the tax would be less then you were making in sales tax having it be illegal. The people make the big money, spend most of it in the state.

Without being able to export large quantities of the drug still most of the weed would be smoked in california. The only difference is it would be way cheaper.

My point is legalizing weed, and taxing it, would generate less revenue for the state of CA, then decriminalizing, keeping price high, and getting the money through sales tax, property tax etc. The money still in the state stimulating the economy as we speak.

Weed is already keeping california afloat.

epicSocialism4tw
02-24-2009, 03:23 PM
I wouldn't mind it legal but we were discussing how Marijuana generates revenue. My point is if you made it legal in calif, the price would drop, and the tax would be less then you were making in sales tax having it be illegal. The people make the big money, spend most of it in the state.

Without being able to export large quantities of the drug still most of the weed would be smoked in california. The only difference is it would be way cheaper.

My point is legalizing weed, and taxing it, would generate less revenue for the state of CA, then decriminalizing, keeping price high, and getting the money through sales tax, property tax etc. The money still in the state stimulating the economy as we speak.

Weed is already keeping california afloat.

You can also grow your own tobacco, but you dont find people doing that. I think that just as anything else, a superior product would be developed that you could go to the store and buy already prepared to smoke or whatever.

epicSocialism4tw
02-24-2009, 03:24 PM
I haven't smoked weed in 30 years, but even I know this makes sense. Interdiction and the crime it causes as well as the costs of incarceration plus the built in excuse the feds have for abusing power due to the drug laws...all these things should have been learned in prohibition.

Legalize it, tax it...plug the money into treatment programs.

As you may know as well, Marijuana laws have been very oppressive to the poor.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2009, 03:29 PM
I haven't smoked weed in 30 years, but even I know this makes sense. Interdiction and the crime it causes as well as the costs of incarceration plus the built in excuse the feds have for abusing power due to the drug laws...all these things should have been learned in prohibition.

Legalize it, tax it...plug the money into treatment programs.

Very well put.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 03:29 PM
You can also grow your own tobacco, but you dont find people doing that. I think that just as anything else, a superior product would be developed that you could go to the store and buy already prepared to smoke or whatever.

do some research you will see Marijuana about 100 times easier to grow the cigarettes. Also cigarettes need some tweaking to get them like people like. Just straight tobacco leaf isnt what they want to smoke.

Really you haven't though it through. Plus Marijuana was less picky then Tobacco when it comes to growing it.

Marijuana much more like Hops then it is Tobacco.

Marijuana grows everywhere from Alaska to Peru. Tobacco just not like that as far as I know.

Any horticulture experts care to chime in?

I do know weed goes straight from plant to product. Tobacco is not that simply just dried and sent to market. The have to make cigarettes out of it.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2009, 03:30 PM
I wouldn't mind it legal but we were discussing how Marijuana generates revenue. My point is if you made it legal in calif, the price would drop, and the tax would be less then you were making in sales tax having it be illegal. The people make the big money, spend most of it in the state.

Without being able to export large quantities of the drug still most of the weed would be smoked in california. The only difference is it would be way cheaper.

My point is legalizing weed, and taxing it, would generate less revenue for the state of CA, then decriminalizing, keeping price high, and getting the money through sales tax, property tax etc. The money still in the state stimulating the economy as we speak.

Weed is already keeping california afloat.


Illegal drug growers do not pay taxes.

Florida_Bronco
02-24-2009, 03:30 PM
I would legalize them all short Opium, PCP, and Meth. But yes it would reduce them. Add more technology on the street for traffic citations and we can decrese law enforcment further. Now we get reduce taxes even further because we don't need no more stinkin badges.

:rofl:

That idea is as looney as your flat tax rate.

Archer81
02-24-2009, 03:31 PM
Weed grows naturally in Kansas and Nebraska, can see it all over the place.


:Broncos:

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 03:32 PM
I think govt could make more for the economies by cracking down on the illegal mexicans growing in in our forests. Make it illegal to grow, but with penalties that dont put someone away for so long they cant recover from it. Maybe 1-2 yrs first offense etc.

Make smoking it, and possessing anything under say 8 ounces an infraction, 100 dollar ticket, nothing more.

epicSocialism4tw
02-24-2009, 03:34 PM
do some research you will see Marijuana about 100 times easier to grow the cigarettes. Also cigarettes need some tweaking to get them like people like. Just straight tobacco leaf isnt what they want to smoke.

Really you haven't though it through. Plus Marijuana was less picky then Tobacco when it comes to growing it.

Marijuana much more like Hops then it is Tobacco.

Marijuana grows everywhere from Alaska to Peru. Tobacco just not like that as far as I know.

Any horticulture experts care to chime in?

I do know weed goes straight from plant to product. Tobacco is not that simply just dried and sent to market. The have to make cigarettes out of it.

Marijuana grows everywhere, but it is not all of the same potency or flavor.

People will be willing to buy something that you dont have to smoke as much of that tastes better as well. It should be available at a price that is more convenient to pay then having to grow, harvest, and keep pot.

I would think that it be similar to tomatoes...
Everyone can grow tomatoes, but you can only harvest your own so often. When you do, you only have so much until the next harvest.

Not everyone will be willing to put in the time to cultivate pot. You will probably only see people who are really committed to it grow their own.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 03:35 PM
Illegal drug growers do not pay taxes.

OK but just stay with me for a second. What do they do? They do get away with not paying income tax. Which mean they are getting over on the rest of us. Of course at first glance that makes people mad, they say legalize and tax them.

Well if it was legal most of them would be out of business because people would just grow there own. Once that happened weed would be like 100 bucks a pound in CA. There would be no tax because it would no longer be expensive and people would not need to buy it.

So you may get some more tax revenue, but you would lose out on a ton of sales tax and the money in general the industry used to produce.

Explain to me why it would still generate large sums of money if legal? It's easy to grow and will grow in any backyard in california.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 03:36 PM
Marijuana grows everywhere, but it is not all of the same potency or flavor.

People will be willing to buy something that you dont have to smoke as much of that tastes better as well. It should be available at a price that is more convenient to pay then having to grow, harvest, and keep pot.

I would think that it be similar to tomatoes...
Everyone can grow tomatoes, but you can only harvest your own so often. When you do, you only have so much until the next harvest.

Not everyone will be willing to put in the time to cultivate pot. You will probably only see people who are really committed to it grow their own.


exactly and tomatoes wont save any economy will they.

Pot would cost about as much as tomato . WHat's that a few bucks a pound?

How is that a revenue stream for the State?

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2009, 03:37 PM
:rofl:

That idea is as looney as your flat tax rate.

My flat tax rate of 10 percent is awesome. It's half of the rate be proposed. You need to study prohibition and the problems and strain it caused on our Government and citizenry. Drug Law are some of the worse. And the "War on Drugs" is nothing but an excuse for jackhole law enforcement to violate the Constitution.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 03:39 PM
ok i have to go to music lesson. Just think about my points of how cheap it would be and try to convince me I'm wrong. It just seems that it would be very cheap because its so easy to grow.

Also IMO everyone who smokes pot already is smoking. Some people just wont do it because they dont like it. Not everyone likes being stoned. Most that dont smoke do it because they dont like it, not because they are afraid its illegal.

Florida_Bronco
02-24-2009, 03:39 PM
My flat tax rate of 10 percent is awesome. It's half of the rate be proposed. You need to study prohibition and the problems and strain it caused on our Government and citizenry. Drug Law are some of the worse. And the "War on Drugs" is nothing but an excuse for jackhole law enforcement to violate the Constitution.

LOL ROFL!

I suspected that you were posting this stuff just to get a rise out of people, now I think it's been confirmed.

Garcia Bronco
02-24-2009, 03:41 PM
OK but just stay with me for a second. What do they do? They do get away with not paying income tax. Which mean they are getting over on the rest of us. Of course at first glance that makes people mad, they say legalize and tax them.

Well if it was legal most of them would be out of business because people would just grow there own. Once that happened weed would be like 100 bucks a pound in CA. There would be no tax because it would no longer be expensive and people would not need to buy it.

So you may get some more tax revenue, but you would lose out on a ton of sales tax and the money in general the industry used to produce.

Explain to me why it would still generate large sums of money if legal? It's easy to grow and will grow in any backyard in california.


People don't need to buy alcohol and you can make more than enough to statisfy the greatest of alcoholics yet alcohol makes billions every year. You are under estimating the population. Also illegal drug growers do not pay sales tax either nor do they report it on their income tax.

epicSocialism4tw
02-24-2009, 03:47 PM
exactly and tomatoes wont save any economy will they.

Pot would cost about as much as tomato . WHat's that a few bucks a pound?

How is that a revenue stream for the State?


Here's how...

1) Every prisoner convicted of having personal use marijuana is released from prison, and every person potentially convicted of that crime never darkens the doors of a courthouse again, saving time and money devoted to prosecuting the crime: pay for judges, attorneys, clerks, officers, office costs, filing and evidence maintinance costs, prison staff costs, prison maintinance costs, prison program costrs, etc...all of these costs for the time devoted to the arrest, conviction, inprisonment, and "rehabilitation" of persons convicted of marijuana posession are now gone.

2) Big producers hire farmers...Marlboro, Camel, whoever. These folks want to mass produce it and make it cheap. They will employ scientists to develop a cheap product with the right potency and to make an array of different products available. They'll hire professional marketers, developers, management teams, research divisions, transport companies, packing companies, print companies, farmers, human relations personnel, testers...on and on. Jobs will be developed for a product that has a natural demand.

3) Taxes. this one is obvious.

So, we have job creation (these jobs are taxed as well), state government cost reduction, and tax influx.

Its a no-brainer IMO, that would be an immediate stress releif on the economy.

bowtown
02-24-2009, 03:48 PM
People don't need to buy alcohol and you can make more than enough to statisfy the greatest of alcoholics yet alcohol makes billions every year. You are under estimating the population. Also illegal drug growers do not pay sales tax either nor do they report it on their income tax.

He is also thinking of it still as being sold legally like it is sold now. No chance. Once big business gets their hands on it, there will packaging, marketing, sales, production, specialty strains... corporations will find a way to get it to cost whatever they want, and the government will find a way to tax it high hell, and people will pay it because it will be better, cheaper and less time consuming than the crap they grow by throwing some seeds down in their garden (harvesting is a pain in the ass). Add that to the saved money from no longer criminalizing small time drug offenders, plus the money that will be made on marajuana stores, bars, licenses, not to mention the money that will be made in the medical industry once pharamceutical companies get their hands on it. At the end of the day we are talking about serious money. Far more than the money being made off of it right now.

Popps
02-24-2009, 03:51 PM
Explain to me why it would still generate large sums of money if legal? It's easy to grow and will grow in any backyard in california.

I'm just guessing that growing it will still be something heavily regulated.

I also imagine the recreational user would rather buy it in safe, legal quantities than grow it in his/her yard.

I enjoy a good vodka but haven't really been compelled to make any. Hence I purchase... and pay sales tax.

Bronco Yoda
02-24-2009, 03:53 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/daR8EjBgcgc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/daR8EjBgcgc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

epicSocialism4tw
02-24-2009, 03:53 PM
He is also thinking of it still as being sold legally like it is sold now. No chance. Once big business gets their hands on it, there will packaging, marketing, sales, production, specialty strains... corporations will find a way to get it to cost whatever they want, and the government will find a way to tax it high hell, and people will pay it because it will be better, cheaper and less time consuming than the crap they grow by throwing some seeds down in their garden (harvesting is a pain in the ass). Add that to the saved money from no longer criminalizing small time drug offenders, plus the money that will be made on marajuana stores, bars, licenses, not to mention the money that will be made in the medical industry once pharamceutical companies get their hands on it. At the end of the day we are talking about serious money. Far more than the money being made off of it right now.


I was told that Marlboro has built theoretical infrastructure for when pot is legalized.

Legalizing pot would provide a way for those businesses to stay prosperous as cigarettes become phased out of big city lifestyle.

gyldenlove
02-24-2009, 03:54 PM
The thing is all the money generated by Californians already supports tons of the states economy. By legalizing the price would drop so far that the state would make less. For one its still illegal everywhere else so no exports really. That money already being spent in the state by the people who grow it and sell it there. They go and spend all that money like little mini stimulus packages every harvest.

Legalizing would drop the price, add to the income tax revenue, but the total amount of money generated would be far less then it is now.

Best thing is decriminalize the small amounts but keep it illegal so the price stays high.

The price only drops if they let it drop. You set up a system where it is sold either in pharmacies or in specialized stores at a price set by the government, slightly below today's street prices. You set up high security growth facilities under state control, probably an old army base or something similar. It should easily pay for itself and generate profti.

broncofan2438
02-24-2009, 03:55 PM
About time.

No kidding. I don't see why we don't do this. I know some of you would disagree, but if your not into it, don't do it, if you are than have at it:afro:

gyldenlove
02-24-2009, 03:56 PM
I was told that Marlboro has built theoretical infrastructure for when pot is legalized.

Legalizing pot would provide a way for those businesses to stay prosperous as cigarettes become phased out of big city lifestyle.

You regulate it, take it out of the private market and sell it like they sell alcohol in Ontario, the state is in charge, operates the distribution and retail, that way the prices are controlled, the growers can be held up to security standards and be monitored and you get better control with who buys it.

That way you could make a medical branch for those with prescriptions to get it cheaper at pharmacies or get subsidies.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-24-2009, 03:59 PM
Here's how...

1) Every prisoner convicted of having personal use marijuana is released from prison, and every person potentially convicted of that crime never darkens the doors of a courthouse again, saving time and money devoted to prosecuting the crime: pay for judges, attorneys, clerks, officers, office costs, filing and evidence maintinance costs, prison staff costs, prison maintinance costs, prison program costrs, etc...all of these costs for the time devoted to the arrest, conviction, inprisonment, and "rehabilitation" of persons convicted of marijuana posession are now gone.

2) Big producers hire farmers...Marlboro, Camel, whoever. These folks want to mass produce it and make it cheap. They will employ scientists to develop a cheap product with the right potency and to make an array of different products available. They'll hire professional marketers, developers, management teams, research divisions, transport companies, packing companies, print companies, farmers, human relations personnel, testers...on and on. Jobs will be developed for a product that has a natural demand.

3) Taxes. this one is obvious.

So, we have job creation (these jobs are taxed as well), state government cost reduction, and tax influx.

Its a no-brainer IMO, that would be an immediate stress releif on the economy.

Like it a lot. Only issue i have is with having the tobacco companies create the new pot cigs. They'll design and implement additives to make the pot more addictive and possibly more harmful.

I have a big problem with that. If you haven't seen it, rent The Insider. Eye opening. Then imagine them doing the same thigns with pot that they do with tobacco.

And if you think they won't, I've got news.

snowspot66
02-24-2009, 04:00 PM
:rofl:

That idea is as looney as your flat tax rate.

Why?

epicSocialism4tw
02-24-2009, 04:04 PM
Like it a lot. Only issue i have is with having the tobacco companies create the new pot cigs. They'll design and implement additives to make the pot more addictive and possibly more harmful.

I have a big problem with that. If you haven't seen it, rent The Insider. Eye opening. Then imagine them doing the same thigns with pot that they do with tobacco.

And if you think they won't, I've got news.

The Insider is one of my favorite movies.

The way that they are able to make cigarettes addictive is by making the pathway to the brain more rapidly traversed, and the impact of immediate gratification more pronounced.

With pot, there is no need to alter the impact. The purpose of using is different. Just as with alcohol, you cant use it all day and still function normally in the work place. Most people would use it recreationally, not in the way that cigarettes are used.

Popps
02-24-2009, 04:05 PM
It's a deep topic and as many things in life are... a gray area.

The only thing that really sets me off about this topic is the slippery slope thing. (If we legalize this, we have to legalize Crystal Meth, etc.)

It's just one of those things in life you have to look at and be somewhat objective. As I said, I'm not a smoker. I have in my life, but don't have any interest now, and frankly... I don't want my kids smoking. But, I don't want them drinking, either. If they want to use either responsibly as adults, I won't be able to stop them.

Imagine if we pulled all of the DEA resources (or most) off of pot and put them onto more societally dangerous drugs.

I just can't see enough downside to outweigh the upside of legalization.

But, that doesn't mean there won't be downside. There will be.

snowspot66
02-24-2009, 04:10 PM
There will be downsides but really there are downsides to every decision.

As it is we are living in the shadow of fear from early 20th century puritan values. We've ditched or improved almost everything else from that era but the fear of drugs and sex hold on with an absurd death grip. It seems that only now are legitimate conversations being held on these topics.

Bronco Yoda
02-24-2009, 04:12 PM
I don't smoke pot either...but I've never understood why pot is illegal but alcohol is.

Now who's buying the first round tonight.

OBF1
02-24-2009, 04:12 PM
I have little doubt that California will do this, considering the budget mess they're in. Any money coming in the door will be welcome money.

I'm curious how the Feds will respond.

Well if you actully lived in California and had your ear to the pavement you would not say this. It is just an AB at this time (Assembly Bill) which is the first stage. This state is run by the enviros and they will not let this get any further than a AB. With your logic, why not legalize Meth since the California meth labs produce more than any other state in the country. ???

Bronco Yoda
02-24-2009, 04:14 PM
no way it ever gets close to passing

TDmvp
02-24-2009, 04:20 PM
beer vs pot


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/o1HtfQZXl6U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o1HtfQZXl6U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


any questions ? ...

24champ
02-24-2009, 04:20 PM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/60/211136233_93ed5cbe23.jpg

Cigaweed!

Popps
02-24-2009, 04:54 PM
why not legalize Meth since the California meth labs produce more than any other state in the country. ???

Generally like your posts, but this was the exact thing I mentioned that I just don't understand.

Have you ever known anyone who's done meth, and I mean really done it and become addicted?

I good friend of mine (grew up with him) just got out of a 90 day program and is attempting to recover. Brilliant guy, artistic type but he made some bad decisions and doing meth was one of them. It's one of those things I swore would never happen to anyone I knew.

If you've been close to anyone who's used, you'd just never make the analogy of Meth to Pot. It's literally like comparing BB guns to bazookas.

DBroncos4life
02-24-2009, 04:56 PM
Under the Tenth Amendment the Federal Government has no right to tell California what they can do on this issue within it's borders.

While this is true they can stop giving the state money for things like roads, schools, and anything else till they change the law to what the Federal Gevernment wants.

DBroncos4life
02-24-2009, 05:01 PM
But then the States can with hold the funds. You guys forget that the Feds get the money from the people in the States to begin with. It's the corner stone of our bloated Federal Government problem.

You don't think any state may have thought of something that when the Government said the drinking law is now 21 in each state do you? Wait they did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

Breaker
02-24-2009, 05:03 PM
If they do that then they need to follow up and make interent gambling 100 percent legal, estimates of 3 Billion in Federal tax revenue every single year if they do that. Stick that in the SS fund and dont touch it and maybe we start to bail out that monstrosity.

OBF1
02-24-2009, 05:26 PM
Generally like your posts, but this was the exact thing I mentioned that I just don't understand.

Have you ever known anyone who's done meth, and I mean really done it and become addicted?

I good friend of mine (grew up with him) just got out of a 90 day program and is attempting to recover. Brilliant guy, artistic type but he made some bad decisions and doing meth was one of them. It's one of those things I swore would never happen to anyone I knew.

If you've been close to anyone who's used, you'd just never make the analogy of Meth to Pot. It's literally like comparing BB guns to bazookas.


Actully a cousin of mine has been a pot head for 20+years AND has a huge thing for the marching powder and smoking rock.... So yes I do know people first hand.

My point is what about ALL peoples right to choose??? Why should smokers get a break over those that toot, cook crack or inject/smoke herion? Any drugs use has the potential to ruin a life in one form or another.

Popps
02-24-2009, 06:41 PM
Actully a cousin of mine has been a pot head for 20+years AND has a huge thing for the marching powder and smoking rock.... So yes I do know people first hand.

My point is what about ALL peoples right to choose??? Why should smokers get a break over those that toot, cook crack or inject/smoke herion? Any drugs use has the potential to ruin a life in one form or another.

I hear you, and I'm actually a believer that regular use of weed/booze COULD open up SOME people to making poorer decisions like messing with heavier stuff. In my friend's case, I believe that's exactly what happened. I think he was an alcoholic and that led to dabbling in worse things. Affected decision-making.

I think as to why people should get the right to choose (or not) ... it's just what we as a society collectively find tolerable/sustainable. Your average person probably feels like society can handle weed, whereas smack/meth is a whole other ball-game.

That's part of the democratic process.... determining where we draw lines.
It's just another gray area, and for now... our society has collectively decided we can't handle it. I just have a feeling that may change some day, for a number of reasons.

DHallblows
02-24-2009, 06:45 PM
Actully a cousin of mine has been a pot head for 20+years AND has a huge thing for the marching powder and smoking rock.... So yes I do know people first hand.

My point is what about ALL peoples right to choose??? Why should smokers get a break over those that toot, cook crack or inject/smoke herion? Any drugs use has the potential to ruin a life in one form or another.

You can't honestly compare weed to cocaine or heroin in terms of someone's "right to choose" to use it. Cocaine and heroin will tear someone up if they keep using it and WILL kill them eventually. Weed doesn't do more to someone's health than alcohol so it should be equally someone's choice to do that to their body as it is for alcohol.

Tombstone RJ
02-24-2009, 06:53 PM
Here's how...

1) Every prisoner convicted of having personal use marijuana is released from prison, and every person potentially convicted of that crime never darkens the doors of a courthouse again, saving time and money devoted to prosecuting the crime: pay for judges, attorneys, clerks, officers, office costs, filing and evidence maintinance costs, prison staff costs, prison maintinance costs, prison program costrs, etc...all of these costs for the time devoted to the arrest, conviction, inprisonment, and "rehabilitation" of persons convicted of marijuana posession are now gone.

2) Big producers hire farmers...Marlboro, Camel, whoever. These folks want to mass produce it and make it cheap. They will employ scientists to develop a cheap product with the right potency and to make an array of different products available. They'll hire professional marketers, developers, management teams, research divisions, transport companies, packing companies, print companies, farmers, human relations personnel, testers...on and on. Jobs will be developed for a product that has a natural demand.

3) Taxes. this one is obvious.

So, we have job creation (these jobs are taxed as well), state government cost reduction, and tax influx.

Its a no-brainer IMO, that would be an immediate stress releif on the economy.

McSkillet is McSmart.

Tombstone RJ
02-24-2009, 07:03 PM
Mari-jah-wana is a soft drug. I believe that. It can be abused, but so can Mountain Dew.

I do not believe in the legalization of all "drugs" because I do think there is a difference between something that grows naturally out of the ground, and something that is cooked up with synthetic chemicals in a lab/kitchen in small town America (meth).

Posters who don't see this difference probably can't see the difference in Cutler compared to Griese.

So, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 07:06 PM
Why dont you tell us all what jobs they cant be fired from. Public safety and the marijuana/doctor's note is a complete joke. My cousin has one of those medical cards for pot and the only problem she has is she is too lazy, a b**** and likes to try to live off my Grandfather's hard earned money. It probably says gloucoma on the card. She has trouble seeing or finding a job.

you are using a personal experience as a basis for your opinion but those often mislead you. I'm not saying the medical isn't a joke, I agree most smoke it to get high. I'm just disagreeing that money would be more lucrative for the economy if you legalized it. I'm arguing it would mean less.

Also I'm saying if Arnold vetoed a bill about that would have allowed people with medical cards to avoid a drug test for pot, he will most certainly veto any bill that dealt with legalization.

IMO whether pot makes people lazy, and if thats enough to make it illegal, is another issue.

It's obvious you have a personal bias which affects your stance on these issues.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 07:10 PM
Also all the talk about marijuana being more potent now has been debunked by several studies. Turns out THC detection is way better then it was in the 60's and that explains why they think weed now is better.

The difference is there was not as much of the really strong weed available because it had not yet been brought back to the states to cultivate. Pakistani/afghan weed is just better and once those strains were available Americans realized Mexican and South American strains just not as strong.

Many of the Afghani and Pakistani strains were then bred with ones from N America to make hybrids that grow better in different climates.

Trust me you could go back 1000 yrs and weed would be potent.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 07:14 PM
I suspect the whole weed is way stronger propaganda started because the govt wanted to try and change peoples minds on it being harmless.

They money wasted on anti weed commercials and propaganda is a waste and should be stopped. The Bush theory was Marijuana should be focused on because it is the gateway drug. That whole line of reasoning if flawed. Hopefully Obama will be smarter and come up with a better way of doing drug control and enforcement.

Tombstone RJ
02-24-2009, 07:20 PM
Doooon't bogart that joint my friend.... classic tune

Arkansas Bronco
02-24-2009, 07:28 PM
Did you catch the CNBC special recently? I think it's called Pot Nation or something like that. Basically, Cali is doing well over a billion a year under the table. I can't imagine how much could be produced and sold if legally.

I have severe reservations about it, but I think it's probably the thing to do
It's a gray area much like Alcohol, and people just don't seem to want to live without it.

I don't smoke, but I can understand the appeal. Beyond that, I can't understand the massive resources we put into trying to stop it, and the endless violence related to the illegal trade.

Illegal trade also ****s with the environment in many ways, as well.

I think people might have to put aside their view on the drug itself and look at the bigger picture, here.

Its easier to quit then alcohol. If they can get a recent testing system where they can tell if your rolling stoned then it should get a pass. Hell its about as hard to find a spot to smoke a cig now in the usa as it is to find a spot for that.

Dukes
02-24-2009, 07:36 PM
Under the Tenth Amendment the Federal Government has no right to tell California what they can do on this issue within it's borders.

Exactly, this is just the type of issue states should be able to determine for themselves without federal interference.

Broncojef
02-24-2009, 07:54 PM
I don't think he can ever become President of the US because he was not born in the USA, which I believe, is a prerequisite(sp?) for the position.

Didn't seem to impede Obama at all. President backing or not Marijuana and prostitution should be legalized and be done with it once and for all. The war on drugs is a failure and a needless drain.

jayman_37
02-24-2009, 08:14 PM
Didn't this happen on season 3 of "The Wire"?

Yep, amsterdam. It cut down on a lot of violence and other problems, but that is also on a t.v show, but could life immitate art? Possibly.

bowtown
02-24-2009, 08:37 PM
Didn't seem to impede Obama at all. President backing or not Marijuana and prostitution should be legalized and be done with it once and for all. The war on drugs is a failure and a needless drain.

You had me until prostitution. I'm only on baord legalizing things that people can choose for themselves and don't hurt others.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 09:12 PM
I'm just guessing that growing it will still be something heavily regulated.

I also imagine the recreational user would rather buy it in safe, legal quantities than grow it in his/her yard.

I enjoy a good vodka but haven't really been compelled to make any. Hence I purchase... and pay sales tax.

I think having to ferment stuff, not having the ability to filter like Grey Goose does all makes it much harder to make a good vodka then it is to grow weed.

All the good weed people smoking and saying is so high potency is already being grown in 1000's of backyards and property patches in northern calif. I think it is easier to grow yourself and no way the price would stay very high if legal. It would cost about what a bag of tobacco costs when people like to roll there own.

What does a bag of tobacco cost? Then figure people don't smoke 10 joints a day, or 25 joints a day like smokers do cigarettes. I just don't see it being that lucrative of a business. Not to mention only like 15% of the country even smokes weed, maybe 20%. There are a ton more smokers IMO.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 09:14 PM
The price only drops if they let it drop. You set up a system where it is sold either in pharmacies or in specialized stores at a price set by the government, slightly below today's street prices. You set up high security growth facilities under state control, probably an old army base or something similar. It should easily pay for itself and generate profti.

state controlled pot production. Now I have heard it all.

extralife
02-24-2009, 09:15 PM
You had me until prostitution. I'm only on baord legalizing things that people can choose for themselves and don't hurt others.

No reason for prostitution to be illegal, either. I mean, it's quite legal for two people to be paid to have sex on camera, but if you take the camera away it's illegal? Making it legal means regulating it which theoretically makes it safer. But this is another argument.

bowtown
02-24-2009, 09:15 PM
All the good weed people smoking and saying is so high potency is already being grown in 1000's of backyards and property patches in northern calif.

You know nothing about growing pot. Just stop.

cutthemdown
02-24-2009, 09:18 PM
You know nothing about growing pot. Just stop.

I don't but I did watch Marijuana Nation and that's what they seemed to indicate. It's not really smuggled into CA anymore its just a bunch a people up north, and some down south growing it.

I'm sure some is still from other areas but it's not like coke where it travels a great distance.

bowtown
02-24-2009, 09:29 PM
I don't but I did watch Marijuana Nation and that's what they seemed to indicate. It's not really smuggled into CA anymore its just a bunch a people up north, and some down south growing it.

I'm sure some is still from other areas but it's not like coke where it travels a great distance.

Well first of all it's not being grown in back yards. It's being grown in closets, entire houses, or huge warehouses, under very expensive and exact conditions and lighting. The best stuff isn't even grown in dirt, it's grown in water and is delicate.

That's the best stuff. Most of the stuff out there is not the best stuff and a whole **** ton of it is still coming in from Mexico... which is a whole other reason to legalize it. Aside from the points which you keep ignoring, such as the cost benefit of decriminalization, the cost benefit of private sector production, marketing and sale. You just keep brining up taxes, underestimating the number of recreational users in the US, and refusing to acknowledge that the price of it can be whatever the regulations and corporations will set it at and will certainly be much higher than cigarettes, seeing as how most users don't partake in it the same way or with the same frequncy that smokers smoke. Your analogy is a bad one and doesn't really take into account how any sort of legal product is produced and sold in this country.

Hamrob
02-24-2009, 09:57 PM
It's about time. I'm not high on pot myself. No pun intended...but I do see the logic in this. In fact it's assinine not to do it. I say do it across the country and regulate the heck out of it. Tax it heavily and reap the rewards. I don't think this is mortgaging our future...but it does call for responsibility. Saying that we can't manage this process responsibly says alot about how far we've fallen!

Hamrob
02-24-2009, 10:01 PM
The facts are....that 7 out of 10 americans of legal age have tried pot at some point. So, breaking the law is o.k. for 70% of americans...but legalizing the object of our breaking the law is unthinkable?

Explain the logic in that BS defense?

Popps
02-24-2009, 11:33 PM
Its easier to quit then alcohol. If they can get a recent testing system where they can tell if your rolling stoned then it should get a pass. Hell its about as hard to find a spot to smoke a cig now in the usa as it is to find a spot for that.

Yea, I agree for the most part and again... I'm not a smoker, but boy have I known some wake-and-bakers.

For all the old reasoning saying pot isn't addictive, I've sure known a bunch of people that looked absolutely addicted, in my opinion. I've known multiple people that simply couldn't function day to day without it. A couple people in particular who's lives was really negatively effected by it.

Again, I'm actually in favor or legalization and proper oversight. But, that doesn't mean I don't think the drug is harmless. It WILL have some negative impacts on society... I just suspect the net impact is worse trying to keep it illegal.

penguintheory
02-24-2009, 11:38 PM
I would worry that legalizing would create the more powerful twin of the tobacco industry. What is to prevent corporate farmers from quietly adding in addictive substances to create a loyal customer base?

TDmvp
02-24-2009, 11:45 PM
I would worry that legalizing would create the more powerful twin of the tobacco industry. What is to prevent corporate farmers from quietly adding in addictive substances to create a loyal customer base?



set up a personal grow permit tax ...

You get a license like fishing/hunting or anything else ... 200-500 $
a year or something like that ... and you get grow up to a set amount...
and it's a felony to grow 20 grams over it or to sell...


edit : or swap the grams limit for a plant limit ... you can grow 10 plants or something like that .... anymore then 10 at a time is a felony ...
when you start going by weight things get tricky ...
Like when they raid a house and find a bunch of plants they rip them up and weigh a bunch of dirt from the roots .... so a plant limit would work better ...

penguintheory
02-25-2009, 12:10 AM
set up a personal grow permit tax ...
.

This type of small-scale "mom and pop" growing operation won't yield the billions the state wants in tax revenue.

Popps
02-25-2009, 12:18 AM
I would worry that legalizing would create the more powerful twin of the tobacco industry. What is to prevent corporate farmers from quietly adding in addictive substances to create a loyal customer base?

Valid question, but I would assume the same measures that are in place to keep us from being addicted to soda, coffee, etc. (Or not!?)

Point being, it's just a crop. I'd assume it would be subject to normal FDA regulations, restrictions and analysis.

Bronco X
02-25-2009, 12:46 AM
I would worry that legalizing would create the more powerful twin of the tobacco industry. What is to prevent corporate farmers from quietly adding in addictive substances to create a loyal customer base?

This may happen and if it did it'd hardly be unique to marijuana, and like tobacco or processed junk food it's not a reason to make (or keep) anything illegal. Like any other product it'd be up to the consumer to make wise decisions and there's already a large existing base of aficionados who would not put up with additives in their commercial pot, should such a thing become available, so the market would demand pure pot be readily available. In fact, provided there is regulation that all commercially sold pot disclose it's contents, for which there is ample precedent, I doubt additive laced pot would catch on like so many other products.

BMarsh615
02-25-2009, 02:00 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dTbkwzPvZCI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dTbkwzPvZCI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

TDmvp
02-25-2009, 02:35 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dTbkwzPvZCI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dTbkwzPvZCI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Stoner undone by Denny's ... Film at 11:00...

arghemtee
02-25-2009, 03:50 AM
You know nothing about growing pot. Just stop.

He watched the HBO show "Weeds"!

He's an expert.

Dedhed
02-25-2009, 04:09 AM
The thing is all the money generated by Californians already supports tons of the states economy. By legalizing the price would drop so far that the state would make less. For one its still illegal everywhere else so no exports really. That money already being spent in the state by the people who grow it and sell it there. They go and spend all that money like little mini stimulus packages every harvest.

Legalizing would drop the price, add to the income tax revenue, but the total amount of money generated would be far less then it is now.

Best thing is decriminalize the small amounts but keep it illegal so the price stays high.
The state gets $0 from the pot currently sold, so it makes no difference to them if the street price comes down with legalization. They're still adding a huge amount of money to the budget.

Add in the savings from the ludicrous spending on "The war against drugs", and you're talking about serious money that can be put to actual use.

Tombstone RJ
02-25-2009, 10:40 AM
Didn't seem to impede Obama at all. President backing or not Marijuana and prostitution should be legalized and be done with it once and for all. The war on drugs is a failure and a needless drain.

Barry Obama was born in the USA. His father was a foreign national, his mother was a US citizen.

Arnold the govenator was born in Austria. He currently holds the highest position in the land for a foreign born national (I believe, but could be wrong).

Quoydogs
02-25-2009, 11:25 AM
Ok so I have read 5 pages on this and here is something that I think most of you are missing.

I live in Oregon. We get hundreds of thousands of dollars off of tourism every year because we have a great beaches and no sales taxes. Think of the money CA would make off of tourism alone. I would be going there for at least 1 vacation a year for that reason. Yes I am a pot head. There are a lot of us out there. I have a group of friends that go to Amsterdam every year just so they can smoke and relax and not worry about being caught.

Weed is not bad. People that have never tried it make it bad. I was raised and told that if you smoke weed you would go to hell. I got cancer and after chemotherapy I could not eat. Our doctor sat us down and had a long talk with my parents and I about it. I tried it and have smoked it ever since. Now before you start saying see it is addictive, it is, just like that morning cup of coffee that you had this morning.
Itís time had come, people are not stupid, they no itís not bad for you. So here is a question. For the most people that tell me itís bad are people who have never tried it. Then how do they know?

Because someone told them? We were told that the world was flat for how long?

Rock Chalk
02-25-2009, 11:58 AM
Even if true, which it isn't necessarily, you are ignoring all the other monetary benefits in terms of SAVED money. Taxpayers would easily save billions in court costs and prison costs. People have no concept of how much money is spent on prosecuting these cases every year. This is hidden revenue and we're not talking chump change here.

Future costs but all those potheads still in jail wont get released. They broke the law when it was existing so they dont get out of jail and the population still has to support those prisoners.

I do agree that the costs saved from prosecution will be tremendous, but no one really knows what other costs may come from legalizing it. There are absolutely sure to be costs too.

Also, the premise that it will keep weed out of underage hands because its now regulated is absurd. Minor's get alcohol all the time, they will be able to get weed just as easily as they get alcohol. Only now, instead of a drug charge to deter them, they will get a simple minor in possession charge which just like alcohol. The costs to society may not be seen for many years on this but it is entirely possible that drop out rates rise, (which are already stupid) and unemployment rises as well.

Remember, employer's can choose not to hire you if you smoke cigarettes due to health benefit cost reasons, and they can use that same logic if you smoke pot just because they dont agree with it. This is not a cut and dry issue.

Rock Chalk
02-25-2009, 11:59 AM
Ok so I have read 5 pages on this and here is something that I think most of you are missing.

I live in Oregon. We get hundreds of thousands of dollars off of tourism every year because we have a great beaches and no sales taxes. Think of the money CA would make off of tourism alone. I would be going there for at least 1 vacation a year for that reason. Yes I am a pot head. There are a lot of us out there. I have a group of friends that go to Amsterdam every year just so they can smoke and relax and not worry about being caught.

Weed is not bad. People that have never tried it make it bad. I was raised and told that if you smoke weed you would go to hell. I got cancer and after chemotherapy I could not eat. Our doctor sat us down and had a long talk with my parents and I about it. I tried it and have smoked it ever since. Now before you start saying see it is addictive, it is, just like that morning cup of coffee that you had this morning.
Itís time had come, people are not stupid, they no itís not bad for you. So here is a question. For the most people that tell me itís bad are people who have never tried it. Then how do they know?

Because someone told them? We were told that the world was flat for how long?

You make a huge assumption. That most people that think its bad have never tried it when in fact 80% of Americans have smoked pot at least once in their lives.

bowtown
02-25-2009, 12:16 PM
The costs to society may not be seen for many years on this but it is entirely possible that drop out rates rise, (which are already stupid) and unemployment rises as well.


Dude underage kids already get it if they want it. And as for your argument that it makes people lazier and unmotivated, there are colleges all across America filled with kids that would disagree with you. Mass dropout rates and unemployment, that would actually be enough to show up, are much more reliant upon other factors than upon marajuana use, things like social economic situations. Drug abuse is a another symptom, it's not a cause. The benefites FAR outweigh any disadvantages.

bowtown
02-25-2009, 12:18 PM
You make a huge assumption. That most people that think its bad have never tried it when in fact 80% of Americans have smoked pot at least once in their lives.

Right, but I don't think you have, because you sound scared to death of it.

~Crash~
02-25-2009, 01:11 PM
Yea, I agree for the most part and again... I'm not a smoker, but boy have I known some wake-and-bakers.

For all the old reasoning saying pot isn't addictive, I've sure known a bunch of people that looked absolutely addicted, in my opinion. I've known multiple people that simply couldn't function day to day without it. A couple people in particular who's lives was really negatively effected by it.

Again, I'm actually in favor or legalization and proper oversight. But, that doesn't mean I don't think the drug is harmless. It WILL have some negative impacts on society... I just suspect the net impact is worse trying to keep it illegal.

it is not harmless tax the hell out of it . and keep out of public I am allergic to the crap .

cutthemdown
02-25-2009, 01:39 PM
You make a huge assumption. That most people that think its bad have never tried it when in fact 80% of Americans have smoked pot at least once in their lives.

80% huh? I have never read any study that said it was that high. Here is a recent one by time magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1821697,00.html

Researchers found that 42% of people surveyed in the U.S. had tried marijuana at least once, and 16% had tried cocaine. About 20% of residents surveyed in the Netherlands, by contrast, reported having tried pot; in Asian countries, such as Japan and China, marijuana use was virtually "non-existent," the study found. New Zealand was the only other country to claim roughly the same percentage of pot smokers as the U.S., but no other nation came close to the proportion of Americans who reported trying cocaine.

Quoydogs
02-25-2009, 01:50 PM
it is not harmless tax the hell out of it . and keep out of public I am allergic to the crap .

A lot of people are allergic to milk, better ban that also.

Beantown Bronco
02-25-2009, 02:13 PM
A lot of people are allergic to milk, better ban that also.

and peanut butter

rugbythug
02-25-2009, 03:06 PM
Dude underage kids already get it if they want it. And as for your argument that it makes people lazier and unmotivated, there are colleges all across America filled with kids that would disagree with you. Mass dropout rates and unemployment, that would actually be enough to show up, are much more reliant upon other factors than upon marajuana use, things like social economic situations. Drug abuse is a another symptom, it's not a cause. The benefites FAR outweigh any disadvantages.

I don't think you have ever gone to College have you. Lazy and Unmotivated is what College kids are before pot. After it is slug like.

bowtown
02-25-2009, 03:36 PM
I don't think you have ever gone to College have you. Lazy and Unmotivated is what College kids are before pot. After it is slug like.

Yes, actually I went to a very good college, and smoked my way through 4 very successful years. I don't really smoke anymore, but know plenty of people who do; fully functional members of society, who make a lot of money and do just fine. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of wastes and losers out there that use, there certainly are, but most of them would be wastes and losers without smoking a single hit. Again excessive pot use--or any drug for that matter--tends to be a symptom, not a source of the real problem.

Now my turn. You haven't actually spent that much time around pot, have you?

Tombstone RJ
02-25-2009, 04:30 PM
I'm high on life.

maher_tyler
02-25-2009, 07:34 PM
Give it the same laws as alcohol...how hard is that?? The anti-drug people always have some lame ass excuse as to why it shouldn't be legal and none of them are legit. If anything its better than alcohol which is also a drug...back when i used to smoke the last thing i wanted to do was drive anywhere or fight anyone...when your high you just want to chill and talk about other times you were high!! The odds of you killing someone while high are extremely low compared to alcohol!!! Actually i've never even heard of someone killing someone intentionally or by accident while high on pot and pot alone!!

Dedhed
02-25-2009, 08:09 PM
I would worry that legalizing would create the more powerful twin of the tobacco industry. What is to prevent corporate farmers from quietly adding in addictive substances to create a loyal customer base?
Because pot is 2000 times easier to cultivate than tobacco. It's literally a weed that people can grow with ease on their own. It's easier than growing tomatoes.

Any corporate farming endeavor would have trouble getting off the ground.

Quoydogs
02-25-2009, 08:15 PM
Because pot is 2000 times easier to cultivate than tobacco. It's literally a weed that people can grow with ease on their own. It's easier than growing tomatoes.

Any corporate farming endeavor would have trouble getting off the ground.

Easy to grow yes, but not easy to grow well. I think the answer to this lies in beer. How many people brew there own beer apposed to just going to the store and buying it?

gunns
02-25-2009, 08:45 PM
Dude underage kids already get it if they want it. And as for your argument that it makes people lazier and unmotivated, there are colleges all across America filled with kids that would disagree with you. Mass dropout rates and unemployment, that would actually be enough to show up, are much more reliant upon other factors than upon marajuana use, things like social economic situations. Drug abuse is a another symptom, it's not a cause. The benefites FAR outweigh any disadvantages.

Absolutely. There are also high profile jobs filled with people that smoked it and still do. Legalizing it won't cause more people to smoke it. As I've said before, people are going to or not going to whether it's legal or not. Why stigmatize a kid or anyone for that matter with a stain on their legal record for something as non threatening as possessing marijuana. Just stupid.

Breaker
02-26-2009, 01:52 AM
Absolutely. There are also high profile jobs filled with people that smoked it and still do. Legalizing it won't cause more people to smoke it. As I've said before, people are going to or not going to whether it's legal or not. Why stigmatize a kid or anyone for that matter with a stain on their legal record for something as non threatening as possessing marijuana. Just stupid.

I have a buddy who is a computer programmer for the DOD who smokes it up like crazy. But he is responsible enough to do it on his own time.

Breaker
02-26-2009, 01:55 AM
Three things could be legalized and taxed and it would create huge profits for the government.

1. Weed
2. Prostitution
3. Internet gambling

The question remains however which of these is going to break the social stigma and moral stigma first, if ever.

bowtown
02-26-2009, 08:16 AM
Three things could be legalized and taxed and it would create huge profits for the government.

1. Weed
2. Prostitution
3. Internet gambling

The question remains however which of these is going to break the social stigma and moral stigma first, if ever.


Prostitution is a totally different issue and really shouldn't be lumped in there. With weed or gambling, you can always create enough supply for demand. With prostitution, you need prostitutes, which often leads to people doing it involuntarily... obviously human trafficking is the direct result of this, but so are women selling themselves into a profession they don't want to do, but have no other real choices. No one "puts a gun" to someone's head and forces them to smoke pot or gamble online, there are just too many instances of that occurring with prostitution. Legalizing pot is about expanding people's rights, prostitution too often harms one person's rights as it expands anothers.

fdf
02-26-2009, 10:25 AM
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano contends it is time to reap some state revenue from that harvest while putting a damper on drug use by teens, cutting police costs and even helping Mother Nature.

I understand the argument for legalization--it has its good points and its bad ones. But I don't see how lowering the price of pot and making it more easily available "puts a damper on drug use by teens." It's not as if it is difficult for kids to get liquor from liquor stores. Currently, kids are limited by high prices--but that will go away with legalization and then kids just get their 21 year old stoner buddy to hit the mj store for them.

The other problem is ATF. Maybe Obama will tell them to lay off CA, regardless of what federal law says. That would have the benefit of freeing up ATF agents to go after scary looking guns.

rugbythug
02-26-2009, 10:45 AM
Yes, actually I went to a very good college, and smoked my way through 4 very successful years. I don't really smoke anymore, but know plenty of people who do; fully functional members of society, who make a lot of money and do just fine. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of wastes and losers out there that use, there certainly are, but most of them would be wastes and losers without smoking a single hit. Again excessive pot use--or any drug for that matter--tends to be a symptom, not a source of the real problem.

Now my turn. You haven't actually spent that much time around pot, have you?

My Brother Smoked everyday for a few years. He says he has quite now that he has kids.


I make it a point to not take drug advice from users. They have a personal stake that precludes them from being impartial.

rugbythug
02-26-2009, 10:49 AM
Because pot is 2000 times easier to cultivate than tobacco. It's literally a weed that people can grow with ease on their own. It's easier than growing tomatoes.

Any corporate farming endeavor would have trouble getting off the ground.

That is not true. You can grow Tomatoes, corn etc... Real easy too. But you still get more from a grocer than you raise. My dad - A Farmer- Could grow more pot cheaper and higher quality making it inefficient for you to grow it in a window well.

bowtown
02-26-2009, 11:07 AM
That is not true. You can grow Tomatoes, corn etc... Real easy too. But you still get more from a grocer than you raise. My dad - A Farmer- Could grow more pot cheaper and higher quality making it inefficient for you to grow it in a window well.

Exactly. Some people here think you just throw magic seeds out the window and suddenly have a huge plant outside your house the next morning. It takes time, and patience, and if you want to grow really good stuff it takes time and money. Believe me, if people had the choice of going down to their local pot establishment and buying some very high quality stuff, or turning their closet into a greenhouse, installing sprinklers and sun lamps, then waiting 3 months for it grow while it stinks up your house and then harvesting and drying the buds they are going to choose to go to the store and pay the extra money everytime. This isn't Jack and the Beanstalk here.

cutthemdown
02-26-2009, 03:41 PM
Prostitution is a totally different issue and really shouldn't be lumped in there. With weed or gambling, you can always create enough supply for demand. With prostitution, you need prostitutes, which often leads to people doing it involuntarily... obviously human trafficking is the direct result of this, but so are women selling themselves into a profession they don't want to do, but have no other real choices. No one "puts a gun" to someone's head and forces them to smoke pot or gamble online, there are just too many instances of that occurring with prostitution. Legalizing pot is about expanding people's rights, prostitution too often harms one person's rights as it expands anothers.

if we made it legal we could have training for them, medical, you control it at brothels regulated by state. Seems like you could clean up the street hookers and eliminate a lot of the bad things associated with prostitution. Of course there would still be the trade in underage girls but if we let adults do it in regulated brothels then would not that free up the vice cops to really concentrate on the ones being forced to do it on the streets? and the children being exploited?

cutthemdown
02-26-2009, 03:45 PM
Exactly. Some people here think you just throw magic seeds out the window and suddenly have a huge plant outside your house the next morning. It takes time, and patience, and if you want to grow really good stuff it takes time and money. Believe me, if people had the choice of going down to their local pot establishment and buying some very high quality stuff, or turning their closet into a greenhouse, installing sprinklers and sun lamps, then waiting 3 months for it grow while it stinks up your house and then harvesting and drying the buds they are going to choose to go to the store and pay the extra money everytime. This isn't Jack and the Beanstalk here.

Of course casual users would still buy. But if you make it legal the people who do know how to grow will grow so much the price will drop big time. Think of all the people who just hide it in a closet, if it's legal to grow they will rent huge greenhouses and grow tons wouldn't they?

And if you regulate by saying you can only grow so much, or only so many people will be allowed to grow, then you still create a huge demand for people to do it illegally, outside of the regulations.

And also don't you think so much is indoors because people have to hide it? If legal I would imagine you would see huge fields planted with marijuana. Whole backyards etc.

cutthemdown
02-26-2009, 03:46 PM
That is not true. You can grow Tomatoes, corn etc... Real easy too. But you still get more from a grocer than you raise. My dad - A Farmer- Could grow more pot cheaper and higher quality making it inefficient for you to grow it in a window well.

right!!!! and once those farmers started churning out thousands of pounds the price would drop to about what corn costs.

bowtown
02-26-2009, 03:58 PM
if we made it legal we could have training for them, medical, you control it at brothels regulated by state. Seems like you could clean up the street hookers and eliminate a lot of the bad things associated with prostitution. Of course there would still be the trade in underage girls but if we let adults do it in regulated brothels then would not that free up the vice cops to really concentrate on the ones being forced to do it on the streets? and the children being exploited?

A lot of good points. The regulations would certinaly be helpful, but if you clean up the bad scenarios in which women become prosititutes, then I think it significantly depletes the pool you have to draw from and that opens a whole new (or rather an old) can of worms in terms of what kind of behind-closed-door recruiting methods evolve to statisfy demand. There is still a lot of pretty terrible stuff that goes on in the porn industry and I think that is regulated. It's a tough one. I just can think of too many disadvantages to overtake the advantages.

Rohirrim
02-26-2009, 04:42 PM
The government has no right whatsoever to tell Americans they can't grow pot and smoke it. Drug laws are a violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Pontius Pirate
02-26-2009, 04:47 PM
Didn't this happen on season 3 of "The Wire"?

Hamsterdam!

Dedhed
02-26-2009, 05:20 PM
Easy to grow yes, but not easy to grow well. I think the answer to this lies in beer. How many people brew there own beer apposed to just going to the store and buying it?
Depends on where you live. In New England it's literally as easy as throwing seeds in the ground, and you'll get KBs.

cutthemdown
02-26-2009, 05:22 PM
The government has no right whatsoever to tell Americans they can't grow pot and smoke it. Drug laws are a violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

here is where your argument fails. The Constitution itself gives power to the Supreme Court to decide what is, and what is not Constitutional. IMO they did that because they knew govt would grow and take on more responsibility then they could probably account for.

They were very smart IMO.

So Rho if the Supreme Court doesn't rule federal drug laws unconstitutional , then they aren't. It really is that cut and dry. You can say you disagree with that but IMO you can't think yourself bigger then the Supreme Court. If the founding fathers wanted ordinary Americans to be able to decide what is Constitutional they would have made it so.

Instead you have to rely on the Supreme Court, the President who appoints them, and the Congress who approves them.

IMO there isn't one out there outside of maybe Ron Paul that would say we should appoint judges who will rule drug laws are unconstitutional.

Dedhed
02-26-2009, 05:28 PM
My Brother Smoked everyday for a few years. He says he has quite now that he has kids.


I make it a point to not take drug advice from users. They have a personal stake that precludes them from being impartial.So do non-users. You would take away their moral high ground.

Dedhed
02-26-2009, 05:31 PM
here is where your argument fails. The Constitution itself gives power to the Supreme Court to decide what is, and what is not Constitutional. IMO they did that because they knew govt would grow and take on more responsibility then they could probably account for.

They were very smart IMO.

So Rho if the Supreme Court doesn't rule federal drug laws unconstitutional , then they aren't. It really is that cut and dry. You can say you disagree with that but IMO you can't think yourself bigger then the Supreme Court. If the founding fathers wanted ordinary Americans to be able to decide what is Constitutional they would have made it so.

Instead you have to rely on the Supreme Court, the President who appoints them, and the Congress who approves them.

IMO there isn't one out there outside of maybe Ron Paul that would say we should appoint judges who will rule drug laws are unconstitutional.
While this is true, the Constitution was penned by many drug users who probably never considered that something that grows naturally would be made illegal.

cutthemdown
02-26-2009, 05:45 PM
While this is true, the Constitution was penned by many drug users who probably never considered that something that grows naturally would be made illegal.

I agree with that. I still think though what they did know was that they didn't know everything. They made the Constitution pretty hard to change, but pretty easy to flex through how it is applied.

Maybe the Supreme Court is too much just like politicians with robes on and that's how they change Constitution without changing it.

Dedhed
02-26-2009, 06:26 PM
I agree with that. I still think though what they did know was that they didn't know everything. They made the Constitution pretty hard to change, but pretty easy to flex through how it is applied.

Maybe the Supreme Court is too much just like politicians with robes on and that's how they change Constitution without changing it.

Unfortunately, the SC has become nothing more than political puppetry. The founding fathers were wise enough to understand that they couldn't account for the future. They were also wise enough to know that sometimes opium hits the spot.

Popps
02-26-2009, 11:46 PM
O. Think of all the people who just hide it in a closet, if it's legal to grow they will rent huge greenhouses and grow tons wouldn't they?

And if you regulate by saying you can only grow so much, or only so many people will be allowed to grow, then you still create a huge demand for people to do it illegally, outside of the regulations.

And also don't you think so much is indoors because people have to hide it? If legal I would imagine you would see huge fields planted with marijuana. Whole backyards etc.

You'd have to regulate it. You simply wouldn't be allowed by law to grow and or disperse it on your own.

Beyond that, who the hell wants to take up closet and yard space in their home and wait half the year for something they could pick up at a drug store or corner market?

As I said, people could make their own beer too, but no one does outside of a hobby. It's a pain. People who want to smoke the stuff would want to access it through normal means, not by turning their homes into greenhouses.

Popps
02-26-2009, 11:52 PM
While this is true, the Constitution was penned by many drug users who probably never considered that something that grows naturally would be made illegal.

They also owned slaves.

I love how we hark back to the constitution for these arguments, as if it has any real relevancy.

Are people honestly going to be convinced to legalize the drug because some of our forefathers may have smoked it? Honestly, anyone that would base their decision on that MUST be stoned.

"DUDE... like, George Washington was totally baked before crossing the Delaware."

"No ****? Fuuuuuuuk, man... we should legalize this ****, then. THAT'S proof right there!"


How about we just legalize it because it makes sense in the context of the times in which we live.

Taco John
02-27-2009, 12:06 AM
Of course, Washington did have that wicked Yoda Bong...

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6128/washingtonbong.jpg

cutthemdown
02-27-2009, 08:37 PM
You'd have to regulate it. You simply wouldn't be allowed by law to grow and or disperse it on your own.

Beyond that, who the hell wants to take up closet and yard space in their home and wait half the year for something they could pick up at a drug store or corner market?

As I said, people could make their own beer too, but no one does outside of a hobby. It's a pain. People who want to smoke the stuff would want to access it through normal means, not by turning their homes into greenhouses.

You wonder what govt regulated pot would be like. If it was so regulated it was still 200 plus an ounce etc I would think a large underground black market would still exist. Then you would still have people being busted for not following the regulations. Isn't the fact we dont want people in prison for growing weed the reason you make it legal?

Seems to me it would either have to be ok for anyone and everyone to grow, or for know one to. We don't let govt control whole industries in other sectors, I don't see how it would work.

Arkie
02-27-2009, 09:36 PM
Is this for real??!!!?? booya!


I don't have to get a new passport in 2012