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
Aussiegunneragain    Excellent article   3/17/2009 8:06:11 AM
I'm currently watching an interview on how we are loosing the war in Afghanistan. Pulling the funding base out from under the Taliban and Al Quaeda is just one more reason why legalisation is a good idea.
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 th

 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       3/17/2009 12:52:16 PM
I'll put in my two cents. First off, while I have associated with plenty of pot smokers in my time, I've never tried, nor really had any great interest in doing so. They enjoy it, so fine for them. It's not my bag. I drink alcohol (some might say plenty of it). I know it's not good for me, but it's my choice and I can live with the deleterious effects. I also recognize that pot has it's own deleterious effects. I see it in some of the smokers. I went to one of the best engineering schools in the U.S., and to be quite honest you can see how some of the people there toasted themselves a bit smoking. Some are still extremely sharp, but I know they were probably brighter before they started on the THC. My sister was a big pot smoker, and she's extremely toasted. Once upon a time she was about as smart as I am, but nowhere near that now. Her choice. Booze can toast you as well, but I don't think it's got the ability to fry you quite as hard from casual use.
 
Now given all the above, one might take the position that since pot is bad for you, and capable of slowing you down, it should be illegal. I suppose a case could be made for that. However we made a very similar case for alcohol back in the 20s. We called it Prohibition. In case nobody remembers, it didn't go so well. Anyone who cares to look at the current drug prohibition can also see that it's not going so well either.

It's a simple matter of looking at the cost/benefit ratio. If you bother to do that, it seems pretty clear to me that at the very least prohibition on marijuana is not a good idea. The costs are extremely high to the prohibition, and the benefits are IMO, fairly small. 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    I didn not comment on legalization.   3/17/2009 1:22:51 PM
I simply pointed out the social model type that fits the user profile, and the provable physical effects.
 
It might be cost prohibitive to make marijuana a controlled substance, but that was not my point. My point was that from a strictly objective viewpoint, we persecute cigarette smoking and almost criminalize those who do so with a social stigma far worse than we do with weed heads and alcoholics . This is socially incongruous and frankly insane.
 
If you are going to stigmatize and advertise against something, you should base it on OBJECTIVE facts and not be hypocritical. As Xylene said, what little we do to stigmatize marijuana is based on false information. We should not try to present false data on the subject. The true data is good enough.
 
One side comment to the RUBEN.
 
Do the universe a favor and hold your breath for ten minutes. I guarantee it will double your intelligence.
 
Herald

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony    Heraldbell: AKA: Gumdrop   3/18/2009 7:55:49 PM

I simply pointed out the social model type that fits the user profile, and the provable physical effects.

 

It might be cost prohibitive to make marijuana a controlled substance, but that was not my point. My point was that from a strictly objective viewpoint, we persecute cigarette smoking and almost criminalize those who do so with a social stigma far worse than we do with weed heads and alcoholics . This is socially incongruous and frankly insane.

 

If you are going to stigmatize and advertise against something, you should base it on OBJECTIVE facts and not be hypocritical. As Xylene said, what little we do to stigmatize marijuana is based on false information. We should not try to present false data on the subject. The true data is good enough.


 

One side comment to the RUBEN.


 

Do the universe a favor and hold your breath for ten minutes. I guarantee it will double your intelligence.

 

Herald





 

 


 


GUMDROP

A clown for all occasions

Graduate of   ?The

International School of Clown Performing Arts?

Quote    Reply

Hugo    Intelligence   3/19/2009 4:37:01 AM
"what is your IQ score? Well mine is 138"
 
No it's not Tony.
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       3/19/2009 2:08:36 PM
I probably don't even need to mention how convinced I am that my mental growth was stunted from burning my way through my teens and 20's. I would have began a much more ambitious career had I had a clear head during those critical years. I noticed a slow gring on my health while on it, and then realized the greater costs only after I was finished.
 
I'll give this to the civil libertarians, but I don't see any economic benefit. Fair tax if we want their money. Outlaw it if we are concerned about what it's cost to society is.
 
Quote    Reply

cynthia123    Premier LA Collective   10/13/2009 1:55:01 AM
Smoking or taking drug in large quantity is still injurious to ones health. People who became addicted to drugs, Marijuana help them to get rid of it because the weeds they use are legal and it is legalized store. The drug they use to cure you has been legalized and it will not harm you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premier LA Collective

www.H2W.org - Check out our website for current menu

Get a free eighth 7 days a week at 918 N La Cienega Los Angeles CA

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4



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