NationStates Jolt Archive

If the government, in these trying times, is looking for ways to increase revenue and increase taxes, why not legalize an American-grown product, encourage the full-scale production and sale of this product, and tax the hell out of it?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pottax24-2009feb24,0,7534269.story

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.

Should pot be legalized? Discuss.

Sure. Though then again in my area there is already a large pot industry. Illegal though very profitable I'd imagine. I had my first real experience of trying it last week. It only made feel tired.

Only reason it's illegal in the first place is because the tobacco companies didn't want competition. I think we, as a people, have finally reached the conclusion that we don't particularly give a crap about the feelings of the tobacco companies, so yeah. We're ready for legalized pot.

Only reason it's illegal in the first place is because the tobacco companies didn't want competition. I think we, as a people, have finally reached the conclusion that we don't particularly give a crap about the feelings of the tobacco companies, so yeah. We're ready for legalized pot.

Besides, the tobacco farmers have ideal locations and climate for growing pot.

And the tobacco companies already have packaging and distribution ready.

More jobs, more tax revenue.

Which Pot? Pol? Black? Melting?

Not just pot, but a booming hemp market would be tremendous for the economy and for green sustainability.

Not just pot, but a booming hemp market would be tremendous for the economy and for green sustainability.

Smoke "Lunatic Goofballs" brand marijuana! Smooth, satisfying, and funny!

I think it should, because it could be taxed and it would, IMO, end with a lot of crime.

If the government, in these trying times, is looking for ways to increase revenue and increase taxes, why not legalize an American-grown product, encourage the full-scale production and sale of this product, and tax the hell out of it?
Should pot be legalized? Discuss.

Yes. Absolutely YES.
And not because I like the occasional joint (I can live without it: I prefer alcohol as mind-altering drug!).
No, it's because prohibition doesn't work very much, expecially when it's applied to things many people want so badly. Remember what happened with alcohol in the US - people drank as much as they did before, but the quality was worse (leading to health issues) and astounding profits went into the pockets of criminals, thus leading to the definitive rise to power of the italian-american mafia.

Legalising means that it becomes possible to regulate it.

Smoke "Lunatic Goofballs" brand marijuana! Smooth, satisfying, and funny!

And grown from mud!


Btw: moral issues. Alcohol and tobacco are even worse than pot as for pathological consequences, risk of addiction. Alcohol intoxication causes a stupendous amout of injuries, including death (drunk driving). Still, alcohol and tobacco are legal... because it is supposed that most people can use them in a responsible way. So why not pot - pot doesn't induce aggresivity, by the way, contrary to cocaine.

And grown from mud!

It's like a kick to the crotch!

Smoke "Lunatic Goofballs" brand marijuana! Smooth, satisfying, and funny!

And grown from mud!


Btw: moral issues. Alcohol and tobacco are even worse than pot as for pathological consequences, risk of addiction. Alcohol intoxication causes a stupendous amout of injuries, including death (drunk driving). Still, alcohol and tobacco are legal... because it is supposed that most people can use them in a responsible way. So why not pot - pot doesn't induce aggresivity, by the way, contrary to cocaine.

It's like a kick to the crotch!

*copyrights the name*

Should it be? Yes. Will it be? No. And that is how it has been for the last fifty years, and will be for the next fifty.

Should it be? Yes. Will it be? No. And that is how it has been for the last fifty years, and will be for the next fifty.

this strikes me as an unlikely reading of events. remember the lesson of gay marriage - things can move quite fast given the right circumstances.

Besides, the tobacco farmers have ideal locations and climate for growing pot.

And the tobacco companies already have packaging and distribution ready.

More jobs, more tax revenue.

DEA agrees with you - tobacco country's prime cannabis country...

Marijuana: Kentucky is a major source of domestically grown marijuana. In CY2005, Kentucky ranked 2nd in total domestic marijuana production. The Daniel Boone National Forest, covering more than 690,000 acres of eastern Kentucky, is a preferred site for cultivators. The forestlands are remote, sparsely populated, very accessible, and possess ideal soil and climate conditions for cannabis cultivation. Additionally, National Forest, timber practices clear previously forested areas, opening up numerous areas where sunlight can reach the forest floor. Marijuana plots in the National Forest are found in various locations from bottomlands, on hillsides and up to the tops of mountains, with the deforested areas the preferred spots for growers. Marijuana growers also perceive the rural areas of the National Forest as too spacious for law enforcement officials to detect their activities. Lastly, growers often plant their crops on public lands in an effort to protect themselves from personal and/or financial loss due to asset forfeiture procedures.
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/state_factsheets/kentucky2007.html

Note that replacing tobacco with legal cannabis get's it out of public recreation lands...

I worked for the USFS in the mid 80s in NoCal, and there were places that were no-mans-land in the national forests...

this strikes me as an unlikely reading of events. remember the lesson of gay marriage - things can move quite fast given the right circumstances.

Or even just look at how fast the cannabis used by Queen Victoria became the evil marijuana used by crazy greaser spics. Remove the idiotic propaganda and it'll become even more accepatable again fairly fast.

Legalize and tax? yes.

Promote? no.

this strikes me as an unlikely reading of events. remember the lesson of gay marriage - things can move quite fast given the right circumstances.

And then Prop 8 passed in California, aye?

Legalize and tax? yes.

Promote? no.

hmm, i'm not sure on the merits, but it probably would make the whole thing go easier if we had some even more stringent rules on actual marijuana ads than we do already for booze and cigs.

And then Prop 8 passed in California, aye?

if it wasn't for the earlier stunning successes of the movement, the score on prop 8 itself would be relatively good news. i mean, holy fuck, there was a massively funded campaign for it and it still only got 52% of people opposed to gay marriage?! that would literally have been unimaginably progressive literally less than 10 years ago.

Legalise it, definitely, but be careful before putting a sin tax on it. That will only encourage organise criminals to continue producing it.

Legalise it, definitely, but be careful before putting a sin tax on it. That will only encourage organise criminals to continue producing it.

only true if the tax is enormous.

the proposed $50/ounce tax should be low enough that there just won't be enough profit in running things illegally to keep the serious criminal involved (though it will almost certainly make up the vast majority of the price - leafy plants are cheap when they don't have black market markups).

We would need a whole raft of legislation. Soon as it is legalized someone will try flying a plane or running a ferryboat while under the influence. It will just move the criminals further on down the line. Then of course there will be the people who rob a bank and say the drugs made them do it. We would need a host of new legislation. I am not against really in priniciple it just has to be thought out. What about people who are in jail right now because of these offenses? There also distribution licenses and transportation of the goods around the country. Not to mention the people get the legal stuff and then lace it with something else with a little more kick.

Then of course there will be the people who rob a bank and say the drugs made them do it.

Because people do this all the time right now*, right?:rolleyes:


*In regards to pot.

people have been trying since the sixties. All I can say is good luck.

We would need a whole raft of legislation. Soon as it is legalized someone will try flying a plane or running a ferryboat while under the influence.

They'll probably crash the plane into - why, say, a skyscraper! Marijuana bin Laden!

Look, DUI is DUI regardless of whether it's a legal or illegal 'influence.' This is a non-issue you've raised here.

Then of course there will be the people who rob a bank and say the drugs made them do it. We would need a host of new legislation.

Your second statement seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the first. And the first seems to have nothing to do with anything.

true dui means under the influence of alchohol or drugs so it is pretty much a moot point

We would need a whole raft of legislation. Soon as it is legalized someone will try flying a plane or running a ferryboat while under the influence. It will just move the criminals further on down the line. Then of course there will be the people who rob a bank and say the drugs made them do it. We would need a host of new legislation. I am not against really in priniciple it just has to be thought out. What about people who are in jail right now because of these offenses? There also distribution licenses and transportation of the goods around the country. Not to mention the people get the legal stuff and then lace it with something else with a little more kick.

so the 'problems' are all of the form "what if people do different illegal things?"

We would need a whole raft of legislation. Soon as it is legalized someone will try flying a plane or running a ferryboat while under the influence. It will just move the criminals further on down the line. Then of course there will be the people who rob a bank and say the drugs made them do it.

The current statutes cover most of that. See California for example. (http://www.lentzlawfirm.com/medical-marijuana-practiceareas-34/marijuana-and-dui)

What's really needed is a proper precedent for the allowable Blood THC Content (BTC) for DUI.

We would need a host of new legislation. I am not against really in priniciple it just has to be thought out. What about people who are in jail right now because of these offenses? There also distribution licenses and transportation of the goods around the country. Not to mention the people get the legal stuff and then lace it with something else with a little more kick.

All quite doable. The last bit is actually a very good pro-legal argument - legal cannabis, covered by the FDA or BATFC, should be significantly safer...

Yes, absolutely. The Drug War has been an abysmal failure that has led to the increased militarization of our nation's police forces. We now have SWAT teams busting into homes at 3 AM for a couple ounces of Pot. It has also led to the massive corruption of police departments as "informants" are bribed/threatened to gain a warrant. These tactics far too often lead to more tragedy especially with the proliferation of no-knock warrants.

Oh hell yes.

Yes, absolutely. The Drug War has been an abysmal failure that has led to the increased militarization of our nation's police forces. We now have SWAT teams busting into homes at 3 AM for a couple ounces of Pot. It has also led to the massive corruption of police departments as "informants" are bribed/threatened to gain a warrant. These tactics far too often lead to more tragedy especially with the proliferation of no-knock warrants.

It's also a national security issue...


Effects of Mexico's drug war hit El Paso

09:12 AM CST on Monday, January 12, 2009

By ALFREDO CORCHADO / The Dallas Morning News
acorchado@dallasnews.com

EL PASO — Touted as one of the safest cities of its size in the nation, El Paso is awakening to its southern neighbor’s bloody nightmare.

City officials say that drug-related violence across the border in Ciudad Juárez is having a growing impact in El Paso. And the situation across Mexico is deteriorating so fast that retired five-star Gen. Barry McCaffrey warned in a new assessment of a refugee catastrophe that could devastate border cities.

“Mexico is on the edge of abyss,” he said in a Dec. 28 report. “It could become a narco-state in the coming decade,” and the result could be a “surge of millions of refugees crossing the U.S. border to escape the domestic misery of violence, failed economic policy, poverty, hunger, joblessness, and the mindless cruelty and injustice of a criminal state.”

The report helped ignite what has already been a sense of urgency among city leaders. Last week, the City Council unanimously passed a resolution that called for solidarity with Juárez. The resolution ignited local and national controversy after City Councilman Beto O’Rourke added a line calling for a once unthinkable strategy to neutralize Mexico’s powerful cartels: legalizing drugs.

“We’ve reached such a level of crisis here along the border that all solutions now have to be on the table, including lifting the prohibition of narcotics,“ O’Rourke said. “Our national security is at stake.”

On Monday, President-elect Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderón will meet in Washington and are expected to discuss the growing violence in Mexico and its impact on border communities, including El Paso-Juárez.

Few border communities have been hit as hard. More than 1,600 of the total 5,700 drug-related killings nationwide in 2008 took place in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico’s fourth largest city with a population of 1.7 million. In the first days of the new year, about 30 people have been killed.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/mexico/stories/111209dnintexodus.188ff7e5.html

It's also a national security issue...



http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/mexico/stories/111209dnintexodus.188ff7e5.html

Isn't that the sad sorry truth. Hopefully the new ONDCP will be more sane than what has been policy thus far. Perhaps even eventually getting rid of position altogether. Pipe dreams maybe.

First Absinthe! Now that would be a good political move. The economy is crap. Jobs are scarce but everybody will be distracted by having the munchies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhTf2C2N5OU

*copyrights the name*

Now tobacky gets truly wacky.

OMG. The pot tax! It would save California schools.

This is the kind of sense you can never get politicians to listen to.

Yes please.

OMG. The pot tax! It would save California schools.

This is the kind of sense you can never get politicians to listen to.

Somebody's been reading the LA Times... ;)

(Bolding added.)

Taxing pot could become a political toking point
An Assemblyman from San Francisco argues that it's time to tax and regulate the state's biggest cash crop in the same manner as alcohol. Opponents say it would create new costs for society.
By Eric Bailey
February 24, 2009
Reporting from Sacramento -- Could Cannabis sativa be a salvation for California's fiscal misfortunes? Can the state get a better budget grip by taxing what some folks toke?

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.

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.

"This would open another door in Pandora's box," said Calvina Fay, executive director of Save Our Society From Drugs. "Legalizing drugs like this would create a whole new set of costs for society."

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."

eric.bailey@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pottax24-2009feb24,0,7534269.story?vote45247971=1

Now tobacky gets truly wacky.

Yay! :D

First Absinthe! Now that would be a good political move. The economy is crap. Jobs are scarce but everybody will be distracted by having the munchies!

Absinthe does not make you high. It just gets you really drunk.

Legalize pot, use the tax income to save the schools. That way, people who get high are helping our children get an education. What True American Heroes!
:)

Yes.

Should pot be legalized?

Yes, and not taxed.

Absinthe does not make you high. It just gets you really drunk.

And can cause cerebral damage.

Absinthe does not make you high.
It does if it's proper absinthe with wormwood in it.

Though it's a different kind of high, obviously.

only true if the tax is enormous.

the proposed $50/ounce tax should be low enough that there just won't be enough profit in running things illegally to keep the serious criminal involved (though it will almost certainly make up the vast majority of the price - leafy plants are cheap when they don't have black market markups).

hey, anybody know (or know where to find out) what the going price for bulk amounts of, say, tobacco is? like what the farmer gets per furlong or whatever crazy measure they use?

like what the farmer gets per furlong or whatever crazy measure they use?
I believe it's $20/weight of George Washington.

I believe it's $20/weight of George Washington.

i'm willing to believe it

And can cause cerebral damage.

Are you sureit's not the alcohol causing the brain damage?

It does if it's proper absinthe with wormwood in it.

Though it's a different kind of high, obviously.

This is what I drank:

http://www.okanaganspirits.com/buy-absinthe-canada/index.html

As you can see, it has absinthe in it. I didnt notice any effects outside of my normal drunkenness. There was a complete lack of the supposed hallucinogenic properties.

Are you sureit's not the alcohol causing the brain damage?

Absinthe is made with wormwood (at least real absinthe is). Wor,mwood has been proven that, if taken in large amounts over an extended period of time, can cause cerebral damage.

Absinthe is made with wormwood (at least real absinthe is). Wor,mwood has been proven that, if taken in large amounts over an extended period of time, can cause cerebral damage.

Pray thee nay, dear lady, say it is not so! For how else shall we prepare for the ribald evening's misdeeds without a bracing shot of absinthe, sweetend in turns by sugar and your lips...

I say, my dickie has become lodged in my ascot...

Absinthe is made with wormwood (at least real absinthe is). Wor,mwood has been proven that, if taken in large amounts over an extended period of time, can cause cerebral damage.

Here is a meta-analysis of the studies on absinthe.

http://www.artofdrink.com/absinthe/absinthe-00.php

I quote from the conclusion:

From this critical review of the literature, it is concluded that chronic abuse of absinthe did not cause any distinct syndrome. The so-called absinthism cannot exactly be distinguished from chronic alcoholism. The literature gives proof that the thujone concentrations of pre-ban absinthes were not able to cause such toxic effects (e.g. seizures) that were found in animal experiments with pure wormwood extracts.

Are you sureit's not the alcohol causing the brain damage?
You're quite right, looks like (http://www.wormwoodsociety.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=184&Itemid=137&limit=1&limitstart=5) I've been deceived for years.


i'm willing to believe it
It's $20 for a George Washington, $10 for a John Adams.

Here is a meta-analysis of the studies on absinthe.

http://www.artofdrink.com/absinthe/absinthe-00.php

I quote from the conclusion:

I stand corrected.

I strongly believe that marijuana should at the very least be decriminalized, and if it became legal it should be regulated and taxed. It is already a thriving industry in Canada, its about time for the profits of this crop to start flowing back into the public sector rather than the hands of criminals. The US would ideally decriminalize/legalize cannabis as well, of course...
http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/bc-bud.html

its about time for the profits of this crop to start flowing back into the public sector rather than the hands of criminals

more importantly, legalization means the (drug) criminals get out of the business altogether. farming sucks and is not a good way to make money fast.