Every year, you hear a bunch of folks, supposedly on the fringe, touting the advantages of the legalization of marijuana. And every year, bills come and go with proponents wondering exactly what it would take to convince legislators to take them seriously. Maybe what it would take is a budget crisis.
With a major budget crisis already on the books in California, the state is taking a new look at the legalization and taxation of marijuana. Those in favor of the proposal claim that it would add more than $1 billion to the California treasury (some estimates push that number over $10 billion) – a pretty big dent in a deficit expected to hit $16 billion in 2009.
Before you do a double take on that number, consider this: domestically grown marijuana is thought to be the second most profitable cash crop in the United States. Only our government’s favorite subsidized crop, corn, is more lucrative.
With those numbers in mind, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D) proposed just such a bill (Assembly Bill 390), which would allow adults aged 21 and older smoke pot in private and require licenses to legally sell the drug. Ammiano believes that the bill would, in addition to raising revenue, would free up already strained police resources. Others believe that the measure would also reduce the numbers of nonviolent offenders held in overcrowded prison systems.
Critics, however, have expressed concerns about public health. Assemblyman Paul Cook (R) opposes the bill, saying, “I think substance abuse is just ruining our society. I can’t support that.” It is worth noting that the dangers of smoking pot have been well documented though, in many cases, are largely the same as those associated with another legal drug: alcohol (the taxation of which has contributed significantly to many state treasuries). However, an important distinction between the two is that marijuana is often regarded as a “gateway drug” which leads to experimentation with harder drugs.
This is by no means a home run bill for Ammiano but the buzz (pun totally intended) is greater now than ever before. In fact, Ammiano describes public sentiment towards the bill as “generally supportive.” But then, it is California. I’d love to hear the sentiment in the rest of the country.
I’m wondering if that would actually be a good thing for the market of pot itself, like what the price difference etc. would be and how it would affect those buyers. I’m just trying to picture that graph in my head.
If you are paying any attention to the violent in Mexico due to the numerous drug wars, this made be a win, win situation in California. Yesterday another Mexican chief of police resigned after a drug gang promised to kill 2 police officers a day until he step down. They had already killed 2 officers that day. This is the second time this has happen there. Remember what prohibition did for organized crime in the US. I have always been anti-drug but like our economy, something drastic needs to be done.
There are many well-heeled professionals who smoke pot and probably won’t mind paying a little bit more money if it means losing the criminal status.
Just because something is legal does not mean the government advocates it, as with alcohol and cigarettes.
Is there any drug that’s more “gateway” than alcohol? It’s irresponsible for politicians not to consider this. But then, these are the same people who need 100 days to come to a comprimise on a budget, so i’d say the bar of responsibility is set rather low concerning our politicians.
Of course the 100 days i referred to above is the time it took California legislators to finalize a budget after the budget deadline.
I’m all for legalization… or at the very least decriminalization – think of the government money saved by not pursuing/arresting/booking/incarcerating/putting through the legal system pot smokers, dealers and growers. GAH!
My question, though… what about the fact that it’s a federal crime? I realize the Obama administration has said they’re not making this an agenda item – but since saying that, the DEA has raided medicinal growers in CA. Clearly they’re not on the same page!
What are the Federal implications of CA collecting taxes on an illegal substance?
Well Assemblyman Paul Cook (R) needs to smoke a joint and relax. Substance abuse is not ruining our society. It’s helping our society get through the recession.
I think that it would be smart to legallize pot. More people smoke it then you could imagine. School teachers, business people it is not just the low life druggies that are smoking it. It relaxes you and helps you concentrate better. Just slows down everything so you can have a moment. Plus think about how much money the government would make on it. billions!!!
One more thing Mariguana does not make you black out like alcohol does.
It is time to finally legallize marijuana and get us out of debt.
thanks
I couldn’t of said it better myself Collin. That is what they should do.
i think if they were to legalize marijuana across the united states it would help put a big bite in the deficit, as for the idiots that have to use harder drugs to get their high as it is put they would use the harder drugs any way regardless.
I vote for legalization. Beer is a gateway to hard liquor. Once legalized, growers could create their own niches in the market and may have enough variety within the marijuana industry that gateway drug would become obsolete. They could put a “proof” their leaves, to show how much marijuana is in the cig.
I’m impressed with the posts, and happy to note that more and more people are becoming aware of the clinically proven fact that pot is virtually harmless — much more so than alcohol. Let enlightenment shine, and let the insane, corrupt “war on drugs” quietly disintegrate.
The war on drugs has been a fabulous waste of money and resources. After billions spent trying to stop drug use, they are no further along than when they started.
The problem is that drug use is a victimless crime. The perpetrator and the victim are the same person. The act of using drugs, in itself, harms only the user. That is why drug use can never be controlled, let alone be stopped.
Many arguments have been made about the related criminal activity associated with drugs but we have created most of the problems associated with drugs by creating laws to prohibit their sale and use. Hard drugs like crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and heroin are generally at the center of violent drug related crime, not pot. These hard drugs cannot even be put into the same universe as pot. The only comparison that can be made is their prohibition. It is easier to compare alcohol to hard drugs than it is to compare pot to hard drugs. Alcohol is addictive, users can overdose, and alcohol use tends to cause more violence between people than pot. All you have to do is to go to a bar a couple of weekends and you will see some sort of violence from drunk people behaving badly.
Our society tolerates alcohol consumption and the ills associated with it because most citizens use alcohol responsibly. In a free society, we cannot prohibit activities just because some people cannot behave properly. If we punished everyone for the bad decisions or misbehavior of a few, we would have to make driving, procreation, buying houses, using credit cards, and many other things illegal. We all know that a certain percentage of citizens cannot behave properly for whatever reason. Does that mean that we have to make these things illegal for everyone? I think not.
In psychology 101, I was taught that there was no known lethal dose of marijuana. Try that with alcohol. I was also taught that marijuana lacks the proper chemistry to be physically addictive. We all know that alcohol can be very physically addictive. I have learned through life experience that alcohol makes a certain segment of society violent. Have you ever heard a news story about a pot smoker getting high and beating his wife and kids in a fit of rage? You most likely have with alcohol.
Given the ills we tolerate in order to allow responsible citizens their freedom to imbibe adult beverages, it seems inconsistent that we would make pot illegal. A plant that God put here on earth that requires no processing or special chemistry to make. It’s manufacture is no more insidious than growing tomatoes. For those reasons alone, pot should be legalized.
I could really care less about whether or not Uncle Sam can make a buck on it; it is just the right thing to do; but we all know money could be saved by eliminating marijuana prohibition and gains could be made by taxing and regulating the crop. It is a win win situation for a nation that is hurting.
I could really care less about whether or not Uncle Sam can make a buck on it; it is just the right thing to do; but we all know money could be saved by eliminating marijuana prohibition and gains could be made by taxing and regulating the crop. It is a win win situation for a nation that is hurting.
ABSOLUTELY tax the weed here in California! LEGALIZE an ounce and TAX the stuff, for Heaven’sake! It’s been around since the 40’s and any one can grow the stuff – let the state earn MUCH NEEDED income and legalize ounce of it and tax it. Geez, we tax cigarettes, booze – ALL vices should be taxed for income purposes.
I really thought this was a no-brainer.