Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?
Jimme    3/14/2009 2:05:41 AM
Could marijuana be the answer to the economic misery facing California? Democratic state assemblyman Tom Ammiano thinks so. Ammiano introduced legislation last month that would legalize pot and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale - a move that could mean billions of dollars for the cash-strapped state. Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion a year in sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity - milk and cream - which brings in $7.3 billion a year, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state's tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion a year in much needed revenue, offsetting some of the billions of dollars in service cuts and spending reductions outlined in the recently approved state budget. "The state of California is in a very, very precipitous economic plight. It's in the toilet," says Ammiano. "It looks very, very bleak, with layoffs and foreclosures, and schools closing or trying to operate four days a week. We have one of the highest rates of unemployment we've ever had. With any revenue ideas, people say you have to think outside the box, you have to be creative, and I feel that the issue of the decriminalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana fits that bill. It's not new, the idea has been around, and the political will may in fact be there to make something happen." (See pictures of stoner cinema.) Ammiano may be right. A few days after he introduced the bill, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that states should be able to make their own rules for medical marijuana and that federal raids on pot dispensaries in California would cease. The move signaled a softening of the hard-line approach to medicinal pot use previous Administrations have taken. The nomination of Gil Kerlikowske as the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy may also signal a softer federal line on marijuana. If he is confirmed as the so-called drug czar, Kerlikowske will take with him experience as police chief of Seattle, where he made it clear that going after people for possessing marijuana was not a priority for his force. (See a story about the grass-roots marijuana war in California.) In 1996 California became one of the first states in the nation to legalize medical marijuana. Currently, $200 million in medical-marijuana sales are subject to sales tax. If passed, the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390) would give California control of pot in a manner similar to that of alcohol while prohibiting its purchase by citizens under age 21. (The bill has been referred to the California state assembly's public-safety and health committees; Ammiano says it could take up to a year before it comes to a vote for passage.) State revenues would be derived from a $50-per-oz. levy on retail sales of marijuana and sales taxes. By adopting the law, California could become a model for other states. As Ammiano put it, "How California goes, the country goes." Despite the need for the projected revenue, opponents say legalizing pot would only add to social woes. "The last thing we need is yet another mind-altering substance to be legalized," says John Lovell, lobbyist for the California Peace Officers' Association. "We have enough problems with alcohol and abuse of pharmaceutical products. Do we really need to add yet another mind-altering substance to the array?" Lovell says the easy availability of the drug would lead to a surge in its use, much as happened when alcohol was allowed to be sold in venues other than liquor stores in some states. (Read why Dr. Sanjay Gupta is against decriminalizing pot.) Joel W. Hay, professor of pharmaceutical economics at USC, also foresees harm if the bill passes. "Marijuana is a drug that clouds people's judgment. It affects their ability to concentrate and react, and it certainly has impacts on third parties," says Hay, who has written on the societal costs of drug abuse. "It's one more drug that will add to the toll on society. All we have to do is look at the two legalized drugs, tobacco and alcohol, and look at the carnage that they've caused. [Marijuana] is a dangerous drug, and it causes bad outcomes for both the people who use it and for the people who are in their way at work or other activities." He adds, "There are probably some responsible people who can handle marijuana, but there are lots of people who can't, and it has an enormous negative impact on them, their family and loved ones." (See pictures of Mexico's drug wars.) In response, retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray, a longtime proponent of legalization, estimates that legalizing pot and thus ceasing to arrest, prosecute and imprison nonviolent offenders could save the state $1 billion a year. "We couldn't make this drug any more available if we tried," he says. "Not only do we have those problems, along with glamorizing it by making it illegal, but w
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
xylene       3/16/2009 5:45:39 AM
Well that seems to be a big part of the problem. We lie to children and teens about marijuana and tell them it's as dangerous as crack or meth and they will surely become a delerious addict if they ever try it. Then they do try it one day and realize it's not at all what people said it was. Then they assume they can try crack or meth. The problem is crack and meth are very very dangerous but people won't listen because we cried wolf about marijuana.
 
I hope one day you can try it at least once. Maybe in Holland where it is legal. Then you'll see why we get so annoyed when people blow it all out of proportion.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    BS   3/16/2009 3:27:25 PM
This happens every time when you say something negative about weed, you're accused of not knowing what you're talking about. Well guess what, I happen to live in the Netherlands, which means I can go out and legally buy and smoke weed right now.
 
I have seen plenty of people throwing their entire education away, just to get high. If weed is so innocent, then why are so many people severely screwing their long term interest over just to get high today? The really nasty thing about weed is that even though you screw up your education, the sense of well-being marihuana creates gives you the feeling that there is " no problem, man" with the result that nothing is done about it.
 
There's a reason why I haven't seen heavy weed users that are also good engineers.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/16/2009 3:44:33 PM

This happens every time when you say something negative about weed, you're accused of not knowing what you're talking about. Well guess what, I happen to live in the Netherlands, which means I can go out and legally buy and smoke weed right now.


 

I have seen plenty of people throwing their entire education away, just to get high. If weed is so innocent, then why are so many people severely screwing their long term interest over just to get high today? The really nasty thing about weed is that even though you screw up your education, the sense of well-being marihuana creates gives you the feeling that there is " no problem, man" with the result that nothing is done about it.

 

There's a reason why I haven't seen heavy weed users that are also good engineers.





I agree with that. I also agree with Herald that smoking is different. However, Alcohol inhibits people just the same and remains legal. Smomking on the other hand doesn't inhibit the mental capacity of the user as much.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       3/16/2009 4:49:28 PM
I'll skip, Xylene.  I've been in enough college dorms to know what marijuana smells like, and I'd frankly rather huff kerosene.
 
Whoever brought it up--good point on the oil leases.  California won't do it, though.  The environuts would never accept it.  (Of course, if we taxed pot, they wouldn't like that much either.)
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Basic Political Philosphy   3/16/2009 9:55:16 PM
The merits of the argument miss the point.  While I'd much rather have the guy driving next to me high then drunk and stats on violent crime correlation to alcohol abuse might all point to pot being less harmful than alcohol I think this misses the point.
 
Exactly why is it anyone's business what someone does in private that does not harm anyone else?  I'm a Republican because I'm a fiscal conservative and a defense hawk but on social matters I'm a libertarian and/or a liberal.  It's frankly none of my business if your a pot smoking prostitute in a gay marriage in your home.
 
On a practical matter the notion that somehow Prohibition could not be made to work but it's better for our society to lock up millions for non violent drug offenses is in my view a step beyond irrational.  It's simply none of anyone's business if someone else wants a drink, a smoke, a joint, or an injection.  What is our business is if that behavior harms anyone else and in those cases our punishment now is not nearly harsh enough because the prisons are already full with non violent drug offenders.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony    Heraldbell   3/16/2009 10:07:03 PM

the way they do because they want to. They run from responsibility and they are afraid of reality. This makes them unfit.

 

Cocaine does not affect you the way that marijuana does, but the behavior patterns that cause persons to go into addiction are similar at the beginning of their path to ruin. A chemical crutch they use to avoid sentience.and descend into an animal condition as they run away from their problems.




Note that alcohol does this also, but that tobacco does not.

 

Tobacco smokers are physical addicts, but they remain sentient. This is why tobacco can be a regulated drug.


 

Marijuana? It falls towards the non-sentience effects of the spectrum.


 

Herald


 

 


 Hey "Mr Physics Expert" i suppose it was those dope smoking hippies that started Vietnam?
  So just what sane reality should they be unfit for? Building a Nation or Building an A-Bomb?
 
  Herald in the end we will see who the real insane people have really been.
 
  And btw, just how many people carry 9MM to buy legal cigs or booze?
 
   None,well except to rob the booze and register to buy crack and heroin 2 blocks down. Oh and you would find that all of them 2 blocks away are carrying a Mac-10 or better.
 
  And just how many beat up old ladies to get a butt or a 1/5 of  Thunderbird?
 
  Very few, because they can always afford to fill up that tin cup. Now try having to pay for 20 packs a day and 10 gallons of Mad Dog 20/20 because they are illegal, and you still are hooked.
 
  Now as for booze?
 
  Well just what is the #1 cause of domestic violence and turning into a complete clown?
 
 
  You people just don't get it do you?  Illegal = Mass Corruption. Just ask Al Capone.
 
  If you are going to fight a war far larger then that cold one;
 
                                           "I think you need alot more then 6,000 soldiers"
 
 
 
                                                                        tigertony
 
Quote    Reply

Zhang Fei    Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?   3/16/2009 10:48:21 PM
Marijuana alone? No. Throw in cocaine, quaaludes, meth, morphine, heroin, prescription narcotics - heck, throw in laudanum and opium-based patent medicines, and they might have a shot. Get Eximbank to provide trade financing and the Navy to break down foreign trade barriers, and California might even experience a second Gold Rush.
 
Quote    Reply

Jimme    Smitty   3/17/2009 12:31:46 AM



I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, since you're never going to convince me that it's a good idea to introduce yet another mind altering substance into mainstream society by legalizing marijuana, and I'm not going to convince you that marijuana is a potentially dangerous substance that would destroy many more lives if it were legalized.  In fact, I detect that this discussion is going the direction I?ve noticed it always seems to go whenever I have it with an advocate of marijuana legalization.  Judging by the number of times you said ?shit?, it appears you are starting to become angry, and you are dismissing all counterarguments as complete and utter nonsense, regardless of supporting evidence.  


 


First off, I am curious about smoking weed, but have never tried it.  There are a lot of reasons for this.  I grew up in a strict home and didn?t hang around with people that smoked pot, which meant I was rarely exposed to it or pressured to use it.  Whenever it was offered to me I politely declined and that was that.  In 1991 I joined the National Guard, and in 1994 I became a cop, so I?ve been subject to random drug testing for the last eighteen years.  I?m still a little curious, but I don?t want to lose my job, and frankly don?t want to have to deal with getting arrested if I get caught with it in my possession.  It?s not worth the hassle, and I think most Americans feel the same way.  Maybe after I retire I?ll take a trip to Holland and give it a try, but while the laws are in place here I?ll obey the marijuana laws for the same reason I obey all the other ones. 


 


Marijuana is not dangerous until you light up a fatty and take a couple of good drags.  That?s when it becomes a mind altering substance, just like alcohol, meth, and other drugs.  I?ve talked to a number of people who said that they had driven while high, and they said the experience scared the hell out them because they were lucky they didn?t kill somebody.  Marijuana may mellow you out, but you sure as hell don?t want to drive a car, fly a plane, operate on a patient, or walk across a steel girder while stoned.  Also, the pot smoked today is many times more powerful than the stuff smoked in the 60?s and 70?s.  They are starting to see all kinds of negative physical effects from long term marijuana usage.  Even Dr. Drew Pinsky, who is hardly a conservative on most issues, has talked at length about the damage that long term marijuana use can cause to cognitive function, general health, and even sexual function.  For what I think are good reasons the government has decided that you should not possess marijuana.  I?m a big believer in personal freedom, but most of the laws are there for your (and our) good.  I don?t agree with all of them, but I have to comply with them or be willing to face the consequences.  If you commit a crime, that makes you a criminal. 


 


Yep, there are lots of drugs out there, and caffeine is certainly one of them, as are ibuprofen, diphenhydramine, and nicotine.  The difference is that those drugs are legal (in controlled doses) while cocaine, heroin, and marijuana are not.  Sure, drug addicts usually have other underlying problems, but that is a lousy argument for legalizing drugs across the board, or even marijuana for that matter.  If you get caught with pot in your possession you should be penalized because you knowingly and willingly broke the law.  By your own admission legalizing marijuana would remove the taboo from their usage, so wouldn?t it stand to reason that a lot more people would probably start using it?  Would millions more people using marijuana really be a good thing? 
 


I?ve heard all the arguments regarding the legalization of marijuana.&

 
Quote    Reply

Jimme    My Sentiment EXACTLY   3/17/2009 12:33:48 AM

The merits of the argument miss the point.  While I'd much rather have the guy driving next to me high then drunk and stats on violent crime correlation to alcohol abuse might all point to pot being less harmful than alcohol I think this misses the point.

 

Exactly why is it anyone's business what someone does in private that does not harm anyone else?  I'm a Republican because I'm a fiscal conservative and a defense hawk but on social matters I'm a libertarian and/or a liberal.  It's frankly none of my business if your a pot smoking prostitute in a gay marriage in your home.

 

On a practical matter the notion that somehow Prohibition could not be made to work but it's better for our society to lock up millions for non violent drug offenses is in my view a step beyond irrational.  It's simply none of anyone's business if someone else wants a drink, a smoke, a joint, or an injection.  What is our business is if that behavior harms anyone else and in those cases our punishment now is not nearly harsh enough because the prisons are already full with non violent drug offenders.

 

 



 
Quote    Reply

Hugo       3/17/2009 7:20:27 AM
First off, thankyou Timon for your honest and courageous initial post.  I congratulate you for overcoming such an unfortunate upbringing to beocme the person you are.  It was a moving personal account.
 
I think it is partly because of such accounts that I believe a review of current policy is necessary.  I do not believe that the legalisation of currently illicit drugs can be good for society but instead potentially less worse than the situation we are in now.  I have included a current article from the Economist which outlines my position which I am not afraid to admit is libertarian.  I prefer improvement, however minor to moral positions which are very likely destructive.
 
 
How to stop the drug wars
Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution

A HUNDRED years ago a group of foreign diplomats gathered in Shanghai for the first-ever international effort to ban trade in a narcotic drug. On February 26th 1909 they agreed to set up the International Opium Commission—just a few decades after Britain had fought a war with China to assert its right to peddle the stuff. Many other bans of mood-altering drugs have followed. In 1998 the UN General Assembly committed member countries to achieving a ?drug-free world? and to ?eliminating or significantly reducing? the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008.

That is the kind of promise politicians love to make. It assuages the sense of moral panic that has been the handmaiden of prohibition for a century. It is intended to reassure the parents of teenagers across the world. Yet it is a hugely irresponsible promise, because it cannot be fulfilled.

Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.

?Least bad? does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain.


Nowadays the UN Office on Drugs and Crime no longer talks about a drug-free world. Its boast is that the drug market has ?stabilised?, meaning that more than 200m people, or almost 5% of the world?s adult population, still take illegal drugs—roughly the same proportion as a decade ago. (Like most purported drug facts, this one is just an educated guess: evidential rigour is another casualty of illegality.) The production of cocaine and opium is probably about the same as it was a decade ago; that of cannabis is higher. Consumption of cocaine has declined gradually in the United States from its peak in the early 1980s, but the path is uneven (it remains higher than in the mid-1990s), and it is rising in many places, including Europe.

This is not for want of effort. The United States alone spends some $40 billion each year on trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. It arrests 1.5m of its citizens each year for drug offences, locking up half a million of them; tougher drug laws are the main reason why one in five black American men spend some time behind bars. In the developing world blood is being shed at an astonishing rate. In Mexico more than 800 policemen and soldiers have been killed since December 2006 (and the annual overall death toll is running at over 6,000). This week yet another leader of a troubled drug-ridden country—Guinea Bissau—was assassinated.

Yet prohibition itself vitiates the efforts of the drug warriors. The price of an illegal substance is determined more by the cost of distribu

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy