Vote for Pot? Can't Decide

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calmloki Of course, consumption is only for the infirm of NoCal. Mighty unhealthy spot, that Northern California. Surprising, given the sporty bike riding population in evidence....

Something's going on out there. It may be the pot is hurting people's eyes. I heard the glaucoma incidence rate in NoCal is 23x higher than the US population at large in the US.

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

If people can grow it legally, wouldn't they grow it openly in their backyard hence rendering grow houses obsolete?

I don't think so, because if it's outdoors, someone will steal it (at least with prices the way they are now).

Quote:

What do you care if your neighbor has a few plants and a grow light?

You're right, and I don't care about that. But it's the 10,000 watt houses that burn down or cause the local transformers to blow that are the issue for me.

Growing dope is essentially legal here in Humboldt County right now. You can grow it if you have a medical marijuana card, meaning that you have some medical condition that needs treating with dope. Anyone can get one of those cards.

The problem is that people grow large amounts to sell. That's illegal, but it's hard to prove. If the cops go up to a house that's using huge amounts of electricity, and smells like a skunk from 100 yards away, the occupant just says "Oh, I have five 215 cards" and the cop has to walk away.

60% of the electric company's calls are to fix problems caused by grow houses (some pay for the juice, others don't).

There's currently a lot of crime related to the houses also, because the product is so lucrative. One of the grow houses on our block was OK. The renter was quiet, and the only problem was the occasional skunk smell. The other house had very unsavory characters.

But, get the price to drop by 90% and those problems go away.

[Ronstar]

I would vote to legalize it, and would support sale of pot similar to that of cigarettes with taxes

[travelover]

Ironically (or not) I think those that most want to keep it illegal are those involved in the illegal drug trade. Other than the legality issue, it is a piece of cake to grow and process - probably much cheaper than tobacco. Making it legal in the whole USA would destroy the Mexican drug cartels.

[Nords]

How much tax revenue would legalized marijuana yield?

How much would California have to raise your taxes to balance the budget?

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords How much tax revenue would legalized marijuana yield?

Proposition 19: Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.

Quote:

It is also unclear how the legalization of some marijuana-related activities would affect its overall level of usage and price, which in turn could affect the level of state or local revenues from these activities. Consequently, the magnitude of additional revenues is difficult to estimate. To the extent that a commercial marijuana industry developed in the state, however, we estimate that the state and local governments could eventually collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in additional revenues.

So what seem to be saying is, they really don't know because they don't how (a) how much "cheaper pot" will increase consumption or (b) what level state and local government will tax it.

[Khan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover Ironically (or not) I think those that most want to keep it illegal are those involved in the illegal drug trade. Other than the legality issue, it is a piece of cake to grow and process - probably much cheaper than tobacco. Making it legal in the whole USA would destroy the Mexican drug cartels.

Reminds me of what Mother said about Alabama: Every year the Baptists and the bootleggers get together to vote the county dry.

[MichaelB]

This is a complex issue. The problem with low cost, easily accessible widespread substance use is the potential to become abuse among large parts of the population. Two examples are the opium in China and gin in England – both during the 18th and 19th centuries. Each tore into the very fabric of their society. In addition, substance use among people that suffer from even mild depression has serious negative consequences.

The key question for me is how to allow use and avoid abuse. I don’t think we’ve figured that out yet with alcohol. If we were to allow broad use, I suspect home production would follow the same path of home brewers and become the hobby of aficionados, but most folks would just go out an buy it, because branding, packaging and convenience would overwhelm the casual user.

I do agree (in part) with Khan – we should treat alcohol and marijuana the same. Decriminalization of use and controlled production and sale, but this is something I would want to revisit and track for a couple of years to see how it evolves.

[Martha]

I wonder how it will play out politically in the long run. In the near future, it probably won't have much effect on the grow house problem and it might even get worse as people are encouraged by local law to grow but the feds may come out in full force trying to shut down the growers.

[Katsmeow]

Quote:

This is absolutely ridiculous. All you are saying is that you and your friends drink, but don't smoke. While plenty people have been maimed or killed by drinking drivers, I haven't read much about smoking drivers being a hazard.

I most certainly do not drink.

However, it is possible to drive and not harm oneself or others. I do agree that it possible to drink and harm others. At one time in my early career, it was my responsibility to prosecute DWI cases and I firmly believed then and now that the penalties should be stronger. I do not think prohibition is likely to be effective.

With smoking it is not possible to smoke without harming oneself or others. And, yes, secondhand smoke is harmful to others. Based upon that, I would have no problem banning it or at the very least, banning it in any public place. I realize that banning it is not likely to happen but I do think it should be regulated much more heavily with usage much more restricted.

[MichaelB]

California State liquor tax for this budget year is $354M. Tobacco is another $101M. I would expect the total state tax revenue from marijuana to be less than liquor, at least for the first couple of years.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB California State liquor tax for this budget year is $354M. Tobacco is another $101M. I would expect the total state tax revenue from marijuana to be less than liquor, at least for the first couple of years.

Could be, though we don't know the tax rate. There won't be any serious existing organized lobby looking to keep taxes low on "their products" and there will be a lot of people looking to let "other people" pay to plug a huge hole in the budget, so I wouldn't be surprised if the tax would be at least as much as the cost of the product itself.

[mh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBWino I'm inclined to vote no. In any case, I don't think the feds will allow it to stand. I also tend believe the argument that pot is a gateway drug. Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't think legalizing pot sends the right message to our youth.

<irony> Neither does the name "IBWino" </irony>

[Birdie Num Nums]

In Washington state, the new cigarette tax is driving more smokers to the black market. Video and story here.

[ziggy29]

As for the fiscal impact, I guess the extra taxes paid on Doritos and Taco Bell may need to be factored in as well...

[ronin]

If back yard growers were to be taxed, we'd need more revenuers than cops now. Tax issue is red herring. Just like Lotto, $ for schools! Yeah, right.

Prohibition is ineffective, and wrong IMO. But unfortunately, this law was written by someone high on chronic. It is a poorly crafted initiative. In any event, if the states (read: the people) hammer away at the Feds long enough, even with dumb, illegal laws, possibly those jackasses will eventually get it, maybe.

[IBWino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mh <irony> Neither does the name "IBWino" </irony>

Touché

Admittedly, I haven't yet read the proposition or my voter pamphlet, so I don't know whether it includes any age restrictions, or any provisions for local control. I'll probably spend time this weekend sorting through all of the election materials (It might take a bottle of wine or two to get through it all)

[lets-retire]

From T-Al's description I would say California is not interested in the regulate side of the equation. What other prescribed drug are people allowed to grow and manufacture themselves? If the law was actually designed to provide medical care to people, it would be a bit more controlled than the description given. Not to mention it would be able to be taxed and many of California's money problems would be diminished. As long as the MJ isn't transported across state or country line, I don't think the feds can really do anything about it. From the sounds of it, the law was essentially written to feed the dopers.

On a more personal note, I am in support of legalizing marijuana. I'm still not sure I buy into the gateway drug theory. If you want to say MJ is a gateway drug then so are cigarettes and alcohol. I have yet to arrest a person for MJ possession who didn't have cigarettes on them and didn't drink. I think the biggest problem is going to be setting a limit for legal levels. Essentially if a person is still testing hot, they are still under the influence of that drug. I can also see many different occupations not allowing the use of MJ simply because of the long time the drug effects the body. Even using on Friday will result in the effects lasting well into the next week. Do you want you LE officers responding and shooting grandma while they are still under the influence of MJ?

[haha]

The usual- don't ban my pleasure, or the pleasure of my class and caste, ban those of the loser over there across the tracks.

People sure love to interfere in others' lives.

The history of marijuana prohibition in the US is interesting, and fairly recent-essentially the 20th century. Though other states instituted "regulation", California was the first state to ban use. A compelling reason seemed to be that weed was popular with Mexican migrant laborers, who were themselves unpopular with the small family farmers of the day.

The first significant instance of cannabis regulation appeared in District of Columbia in 1906, though this law was not an outright prohibition.[2] Regulations of cannabis followed in Massachusetts (1911), New York (1914) and Maine (1914). Simultaneously the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexicans to America. Later in that decade, negative tensions grew between the small farms and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Shortly after, the depression came which increased tensions, as jobs and resources soon became scarce. Many Mexicans commonly smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them over the border.[citation needed] In 1913 California passed the first state marijuana prohibition law, criminalizing the preparation of hemp and its products, the phrase Indian Hemp is sometimes used or what was referred to as "loco weed." These laws were passed not due to any widespread use or concern about cannabis, but as regulatory initiatives to discourage future use.[3][4] Other states followed with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927).

Legal history of cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ha

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire I think the biggest problem is going to be setting a limit for legal levels. Essentially if a person is still testing hot, they are still under the influence of that drug. I can also see many different occupations not allowing the use of MJ simply because of the long time the drug effects the body. Even using on Friday will result in the effects lasting well into the next week. Do you want you LE officers responding and shooting grandma while they are still under the influence of MJ?

Probably an exaggeration to say someone who tests positive is still impaired. After all, depending on the circumstances, and the person, and the type of test, one could still be stoned for weeks...

Must've been some good chit...