 | ||||||
San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis |
||||||
~Navigation~~User login~~RSS~ |
legal pot coming soon!User Forum Topic
Submitted by scaredycat on February 25, 2009 - 3:41pm
Taxing pot could become a political toking point 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. Video: Bill Proposed to Legalize... Civic activists in L.A. have growing...Marijuana use tied to testicular cancer? Readers aren't so sure. 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. Your Vote Should the state tax and regulate marijuana? Yes 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."
|
~Finance and investing~*Investment advisory services and securities offered through Girard Securities, Inc., member SIPC/FINRA. ~Recent articles~~Active forum topics~
Sponsored Links
~San Diego median home $/sq.ft.~
|
||||
| © 2004-2008 piggington enterprises llc | terms of use | privacy policy | powered by Drupal | ||||||
 |  |  | ||||
I don't have a problem with legalizing pot logically or fiscally, but how do you now tell your kids pot is okay but cocaine, LSD, speed, meth, and X are not?
Of course, if our state politicians cared anything about children at all we wouldn't even be in a financial situation that welcomes this idea to the table.
That and it sets a precendent for future legalizations down the road in the name of balancing the state budget. It's not like we can expect them to cut spending or anything.
I'm holding out for heroin.
Of course, if our state politicians cared anything about children at all we wouldn't even be in a financial situation that welcomes this idea to the table.
That and it sets a precendent for future legalizations down the road in the name of balancing the state budget. It's not like we can expect them to cut spending or anything.
I'm holding out for heroin.
How do you tell your kids alcohol is OK but pot isn't?
How do we currently tell kids alcohol is okay but pot is not?
We tried the "war on drugs" before. It was called prohibition. It was repealed during the last depression. The precedent for legalizing a drug, partially because it makes fiscal sense, during an economic catastrophe has already been set.
Really the same as the question:
The idea that because something is legal means it's ok or good is just plain wrong. Saying something is legal just means that we aren't going to lock you in jail for it. In addition to alcohol and tobacco there are many things that are not illegal, but that are arguably bad or wrong. For instance adultery. As a parent you probably would teach your kids that adultery is wrong. But we don't put people in jail for it.
But this distinction is lost on the vast majority of our society, because the majority of our society can only think in black or white. Something is either good (legal), or it's bad (illegal), no other possibilities.
But those of you who are against legalizing pot, don't worry. Legalizing pot is a political hot potato, and there is no chance in hell our politicians are suddenly going to find courage to do anything about a topic as politically dangerous as really legalizing pot,
And remember, people have been talking about this since the vietnam war days. But the number of jobs that are tied to fighting drugs through police enforcement and incarceration just gets higher every year. What would we do with all these people if we legalized pot? 'Taint gonna happen, bet the mortgage on it.
XBoxBoy
Of course, if our state politicians cared anything about children at all we wouldn't even be in a financial situation that welcomes this idea to the table.
That and it sets a precendent for future legalizations down the road in the name of balancing the state budget. It's not like we can expect them to cut spending or anything.
I'm holding out for heroin.
How do you tell your kids that cigarettes and booze are ok now?
Two things in the post I have to disagree with. One, the new taxes wouldn't make it more accessible. Any 13 y.o. can get it if he wants now. Second, most of the pot in the state is grown in the state, so I don't see what it has to do with the cartels. I like this idea. I don't think I want it to be legalized to the point where you can walk down the street smoking a joint, but we shouldn't care what someone does in their home. It would be a huge increase in revenue, and a huge reduction in cost at the same time from not having to enforce the current laws (of course the new laws will need some enforcing too). It just makes sense to me, and seems like it is about time.
Drug dealers won't allow it to be legalized. That would cut into their money - not to mention the taxes they'd have to pay. Thinking the wrong way about cops. Drug dealers make way too much money to ever have this legalized.
people been talking about it a long time, but this might be the perfect storm; crazy economic times, a president who smoked pot, general feelings that pot just isn't that big a deal...i think it could happen. as to the arguemnt that cops or the crim justice system need pot to be illegal, it just isnt that substantial a part of the criminal docket...the cops can just arresta few more people for domestic violence or something. it would hurt pot dealers, but again, theyc an diversify into other products, they'll be ok.
ummm, lsd is ok.
Actually I heard that 90% of D.A.R.E. money is provided by the alcohol industry.
Alcohol and tobacco want people doing their drug and not other drugs. I'm sure prescription drugs have a stake in it as well. Pot isn't legal because it would cut into their profits.
I thought some of you all are against Frankenfood. Genetically altered rice is bad, but genetically enhanced pot is different. I love liberals. Life would be so boring without you.
Drug dealer's can't do anything to prevent the legalization of pot. But big pharma, tobacco, and alcohol can. They are the biggest lobbyists against the legalization of pot because it will directly affect their bottom line.
given the ease with which prescription/recommendations are given for marijuana, and the inudstry that's sprung up selling 9even delivering) pot it's really almost legal...let's all just bite the bullet and move forward and amke some money from the deal...
No way. Stoned people are gonna crave things. Beer, twinkies, ding-dongs, cheetos, munchies, all that junk. If pot is legalized I'd go long on frito-lay and hershey's.
I agree with JP, the dealers can't want the government involved in their business. I would think top dealers can easily afford to buy the votes of these low-level assemblymen.
Lastly I'm sure the church will have it's say in this.
I dont do drugs anymore - sampled many in college but why not legalize all drugs that are naturally grown plants on this earth and make anything concocted in a lab illegal?
So by this above theory, bud is legal, shrooms are legal, peyote is legal.. I am sure I am missing something?
Cocaine, heroin, meth, X etc etc etc - illegal.
Look at it differently - which are addictive? Is pot addictive? That could be argued either way. Is peyote addictive? Are shrooms addictive? Coke is highly addictive, so is heroin, so is meth. X can be from what I know.
Addictive drugs are the reason for most of the drug problems and technically the legal addictions are a problem as well (Alcohol, tobacco, porn etc etc). I dont want Alcohol banned, specifically wine and microbrews but alcohol is a bigger issue than bud.
Drug dealer's can't do anything to prevent the legalization of pot. But big pharma, tobacco, and alcohol can. They are the biggest lobbyists against the legalization of pot because it will directly affect their bottom line.
I would think pharmaceuticals would love to legalize bud and sell it
I don't have a problem with legalizing pot logically or fiscally, but how do you now tell your kids pot is okay but cocaine, LSD, speed, meth, and X are not?
See that's the problem, we drilled it into their head that it is a "gate way" drug or dangerous as those other drugs when in actuality it is less harmful than most. We should not have bullshitted them in the first place. How many people die from tobacco? What kinds of problems arise from alcohol?
The roots of the socially ingrained stigma started in the 30s. Dupont had patented nylon and worked together with the Feds and the pulp and paper inustry to bring down hemp farmers. So they came out with propaganda films and pamphlets. They actually had one where it depicted white girls smoking it which would lead to seeking the "relations" of black men. lol
I'd say that pharmaceutical companies would be threatened by legalization because they know it could take a substantial bite out of the anti-depressant market, which is enormous in the US, as well.
The free market is a mythical beast.
I feel that lsd is a gateway drug that leads to the use of harder drugs and should therefore not be legalized.
Let us not forget that the 3 most recent US Presidents have partaken.
maybe they should put forward two bills, one to legalize pot, one to legalize lsd, and the can compromise by just passing the pot bill.
"Mother's milk leads to everything." george Carlin on gateway drugs....
Good point on the difference in telling kids about alcohol and cigarettes. I should correct myself and say not that pot is now okay, but it's now legal.
I think it has more to do with perception. Alcohol is a drug, but it's not really perceived as one. Basically the same with cigarettes.
Pot is a drug, like heroin, coke, etc. You legalize one, where does it stop? Addictiveness? Cigarettes got that one covered. Danger? I'd bet my bottom $ more people die from drunk driving and lung cancer than all narcotics combined...maybe b/c they're illegal.
So say you draw the line at pot, and NEVER legalize anything else...what would the effect on children be assuming a legal age of 18?
I'm actually not all that opposed to the idea as I originally said, but how do you justify legalizing this, but not that, and minimize the risk of raising a generation of tweakers? Yes it's accessible now, but legalize it and it will be harder to keep kids off it.
Plus no one else commented on the fact that this is potentially part of the state's budget solution.
If that doesn't scare anyone else, I don't know what would...
While I'm all for finding a way to bring revenue into the State (other than through my pocketbook), I really dont think that..uh,..wait....what were we talking about?
I think you found your answer about drawing lines. Each drug would be studied for its economic effects, primarily on the non-users. Those that cause high costs would continue to be limited. But the degree of the limits and the particular form of the limits would be designed solely to minimize the total costs to the rest of society. Methamphetamines would be hit hard, perhaps with the full criminalization we have today, whilst pot would be taxed like tobacco and sold in the same stores.
Scaredy you old stoner, like you said, Pot is ALREADY LEGAL in California. That's what 420 is all about. If you're not in possession of more than 2 lbs (in some counties more), you're not going to be convicted of any crime. If you have a medical marijuana card, which you can get for the asking, they can't even confiscate your weed.
If you haven't watched Marijuana Inc on CNBC, buy a vowel, and do it. You'll be amazed. If you really want a thrill, search for marijuana on Craigslist. There's a guy who'll bring it to your door at the going rate, if you've got your doc's permission.
I'm a pretty straight arrow, politically conservative in every way. Like the great WFB, I see no reason for me to tell you what is best for you, as long as there is no harm to me, and there isn't unless one tortures logic.
I have no desire to become a pot smoker. I've observed it destroy one's will to accomplish. That's why slackers are slackers. At the same time, someday when I'm an old codger, I'd like to go out in the desert with a group of trustworthy friends, drop some acid, and gaze at the stars, at least once. Hey, if it's good enough for Cary Grant, it's good enough for me.
BTW, the tobacco countries have been ready to start selling weed for decades. They've already done the branding, packaging, and marketing prep work. They're just waiting for the legal obstacles to be removed.
I can remember thirty years ago walking down the street in San Diego, and smelling pot everywhere. It certainly was omnipresent in high school and college. Today, I never have that experience, unless I happen to be in OB. Maybe it's just me.
Good, I'm heavily invested in Health Care. This means more profits for me in regard to medical bills and higher health insurance. Let's do it. This will also get rid of a lot of job competition. Those who get hooked on it will not be able to perform well.
haha. we'll be more creative and kick your butt.
most illness is stress-related. so it'll balance out probalee
well, i definitely would not smoke any pot unless it were legal. i just refuse to have any potential legal exposure.
but if it were legalized, I'd help out the state coffers.
that's why im rootin for legalization. balance the budget.
im excited.
Wow - gov't workers/Union's will do anything to avoid loosing those sweet pensions.
Cough.....cough.
Dude casca, did your really bogart ALL those chips ahoy?
I was saving those for my son.
I did a bong hit thirty years ago, and I've still got the munchies. I just polished off a Whitman's Sampler.
How do you tell your kids alcohol is OK but pot isn't?
You tell your kids that if they f*ck up their life; regardless of the methodology, that they are accountable for it and not to expect anyone to bail them out.
BTW - a kid in high school has a much easier time getting pot than alcohol. I guess that is what happens when something is legal but regulated.
I have no problem legalizing it, under certain circumstances.
I'm not a pot smoker - but watched my brother use it while going through chemo. It worked to help manage the pain and *almost* gave him an appetite. (Chemo is really nasty.) He was conflicted about using it, despite the fact that he was obtaining it legally, for a legitimate purpose. But it did help, in his situation, during his final months.
I look at it as similar to tobacco and booze. Both can be really bad for you. Misuse can cause harm not just to the user but to those around the user. Yet ciggy's and booze are legal. How is pot, different?
If it increases tax revenue, I look at that as an upside.