http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/23/BAO416354C.DTL
California would become the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana for recreational use under a bill introduced today by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco.
The proposal would regulate marijuana like alcohol, with people over 21 years old allowed to grow, buy, sell and possess cannabis - all of which is barred by federal law.
Ammiano said taxes and other fees that accompany regulation could put more than a billion dollars a year into state coffers at a time when revenues continue to decline. He said he anticipates the federal government could soften its stance on marijuana under the Obama administration.
"We could in fact have the political will to do something, and certainly in the meantime this is a public policy call and I think it's worth the discussion," Ammiano said. "I think the outcome would be very healthy for California and California's economy."
A spokeswoman for the Drug Enforcement Agency in Washington, D.C., declined to comment on the proposal.
The use of marijuana for medical conditions has been legal in California since voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996.
And here I was lovin my home state of Massachusetts for decriminalizing an ounce or less...
we might be getting smoked under the table. And CA has perhaps the world's best weed. Think of the tourist dollars too.
Oh my lord. I quit smoking mostly because I was getting too paranoid about getting busted and I wont be able to once I get a real job anyway.
I might change my plans of living in the southeast to living in Cali 8-)
Very nice!
That could set quite a nice example, and I'm getting the feeling that people are getting closer and closer to understanding that it's really not as big a problem as they'd like it to be. The people who wouldn't have smoked before probably still won't, or perhaps might be open to try it without the pressure and stigma surrounding it that there once was, and it could, hopefully, be a whole lot less of a big deal.
I haven't smoked weed for several years, but I used to, like a fiend. If this were to pass, I might partake a time or two a year, but I don't see my consumption frequency being altered much one way or another.
The timing in proposing this bill could be quite good though. With the state's finances A COMPLETE FUCKING DISASTER, the amount of tax income proposed will be pretty attractive...plus, ya know, it's weed, and it would be LEGAL!!! I know a few activist friends that must be going fucking nuts right now, mobilizing the troops.
God Bless California. 8-)
(http://humboldtclothing.com/catalog/images/newdesigns707,butterfly%20030.jpg)
I haven't smoked weed for several hours, but I'm about to. I hope it's a nationwide trend...
I really hope this could open the door for the cultivation of hemp; therfore lowering the amount of trees that need to be cleared.
Here's my legal buzzkill:
There's a pesky case called Gonzales v Raich from 2005 (2005 was a horrible year for Supreme Court Cases). It basically said that when it comes to weed and states doing their own thing, Congress has the power to say "not so fast" before you can even burn some popcorn. Of the 3 justices who thought the case was absurd (in very well-reasoned dissents), 2 no longer sit (Rehnquist and O'Connor). So that doesn't bode well.
However, something like this COULD provide a chance to revisit the case. And with Clarence Thomas already one of the dissenters, and Scalia not totally buying the original argument, AND since Obama seems to be fairly ambivalent on the issue, AND with Ginsberg on the outs, we have hope.
If this hope came out and reversed that case, it could potentially open the door to a lot of great things since it would give states a bit more autonomy.
It seems that so far, when it comes to medicinal purposes, the law has already survied for 14 years, so even if the puritans and assholes in congress wanna shit on this, they might not have too much luck.
/class dismissed.
And on a personal level, I only don't smoke now because of job concerns, not out of fear of the law.
if this passes, I am buying stock in these 2 commodities ASAP!
(http://www.edenfoods.com/store/images/products/zoom/103320.jpg)
(//%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0796/6.jpg)
I think I read recently that a medical marijuana law may get passed in the Garden State! If so I'll be visiting my NJ family more frequently!
QuoteI think I read recently that a medical marijuana law may get passed in the Garden State! If so I'll be visiting my NJ family more frequently!
1 of my best friends who now lives in Colorado Springs now gets medical marijuana. When he first told me, I thought he was totally kidding but he gets it. He's pretty much your stereotypical stoner to a tee. I guess he had a shoulder problem though, and the Doc just brought it up and he was like "oh, really"...and end of the story is he can grow I think 6 plants which some grower does for him and then gives it to him.
All I know is it sounds pretty sweet and he's getting all types of Funk for the cheap. Bastard.
Quoteif this passes, I am buying stock in these 2 commodities ASAP!
(http://www.edenfoods.com/store/images/products/zoom/103320.jpg)
(//%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0796/6.jpg)
I will gladly help you make a profit!
QuoteHere's my legal buzzkill:
There's a pesky case called Gonzales v Raich from 2005 (2005 was a horrible year for Supreme Court Cases). It basically said that when it comes to weed and states doing their own thing, Congress has the power to say "not so fast" before you can even burn some popcorn. Of the 3 justices who thought the case was absurd (in very well-reasoned dissents), 2 no longer sit (Rehnquist and O'Connor). So that doesn't bode well.
However, something like this COULD provide a chance to revisit the case. And with Clarence Thomas already one of the dissenters, and Scalia not totally buying the original argument, AND since Obama seems to be fairly ambivalent on the issue, AND with Ginsberg on the outs, we have hope.
If this hope came out and reversed that case, it could potentially open the door to a lot of great things since it would give states a bit more autonomy.
It seems that so far, when it comes to medicinal purposes, the law has already survied for 14 years, so even if the puritans and assholes in congress wanna shit on this, they might not have too much luck.
/class dismissed.
And on a personal level, I only don't smoke now because of job concerns, not out of fear of the law.
Lot more than pesky. We'll see if it is revisited. Of course it came down to ""could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision is unquestionably substantial." It's all about aggregation baby!
Anyone have any studies that include models that predict the short and long term affects on crime based on legalization?
No more prosecution of minor offenders vs. increase in say robberies by former street level dealers now out of income
QuoteQuoteHere's my legal buzzkill:
There's a pesky case called Gonzales v Raich from 2005 (2005 was a horrible year for Supreme Court Cases). It basically said that when it comes to weed and states doing their own thing, Congress has the power to say "not so fast" before you can even burn some popcorn. Of the 3 justices who thought the case was absurd (in very well-reasoned dissents), 2 no longer sit (Rehnquist and O'Connor). So that doesn't bode well.
However, something like this COULD provide a chance to revisit the case. And with Clarence Thomas already one of the dissenters, and Scalia not totally buying the original argument, AND since Obama seems to be fairly ambivalent on the issue, AND with Ginsberg on the outs, we have hope.
If this hope came out and reversed that case, it could potentially open the door to a lot of great things since it would give states a bit more autonomy.
It seems that so far, when it comes to medicinal purposes, the law has already survied for 14 years, so even if the puritans and assholes in congress wanna shit on this, they might not have too much luck.
/class dismissed.
And on a personal level, I only don't smoke now because of job concerns, not out of fear of the law.
Lot more than pesky. We'll see if it is revisited. Of course it came down to ""could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision is unquestionably substantial." It's all about aggregation baby!
Anyone have any studies that include models that predict the short and long term affects on crime based on legalization?
No more prosecution of minor offenders vs. increase in say robberies by former street level dealers now out of income
i think i remember being shocked that O'Connor was on the other side for this? even if this is revisited, given the makeup of the court, i don't think it'll change; (although w/obama in office, less federal busts) i just don't see it ever being legal; states can do what they want, but if the feds can always come in and bust, then people won't feel completely free; it's so stupid.
Yes, some of my friends get the best stuff from CA--pay $100 for a prescription and go on a shopping spree :-)
I'm not gonna quote only to keep the post from taking up an entire screen. But I'm not totally surpirised by O'Connor since it was her an Rehnquist that were the leading edge of putting the limit on federal power, even if it may offend their normal sensibilities.
I thought the majority's reasoning was flawed when it came to the aggregate. Small home-grown production would most likely result in a DECREASE in interstate commerce. Here, you're taking demand away from the black market. A small, permissible allotment of the homegrown fun would keep these people from trafficking it. It would reduce the demand of the product across state and international borders. It wouldn't eliminate it entirely, but I guess unless you're going to argue that even the decrease in interstate commerce (or even intrastate commerce) would amount to a substantial effect, like proving a negative, it could be within their grasp. Still, I find that a very tenuous stance.
Sheesh, you lawyers sure are a buzzkill... ::) ;D
but o'connor got more and more pragmatic as she got older; yes, that is a stupid argument (about interstate commerce)
"Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions
predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth..." You got that
from "Work in Essex County," Page 421, right? Do you have any thoughts of your own on the subject or were you just gonna plagiarize the whole book for me?
Quoteif this passes, I am buying stock in these 2 commodities ASAP!
(http://www.edenfoods.com/store/images/products/zoom/103320.jpg)
(//%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0796/6.jpg)
ahhh! i LOVE apple butter!
:D
QuoteQuoteif this passes, I am buying stock in these 2 commodities ASAP!
(http://www.edenfoods.com/store/images/products/zoom/103320.jpg)
(//%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0796/6.jpg)
ahhh! i LOVE apple butter!
:D
michael bolton clone!
Quotebut o'connor got more and more pragmatic as she got older; yes, that is a stupid argument (about interstate commerce)
Ok true, and while they're both not without their faults (Kelo, for example). But at least insofar as the most recent decisions on the issue, those two were pretty reliable.
Glad they aren't just changing the rules on medical marijuana. Michigan has just passed is for medical purposes and it is such a fucking joke... Yes now my mother and I can use it for our symtoms.. but.. We have to pay $200 a year just because...Anmd they don't supply me with my medicine? We also have to buy another State ID.. We also have to register.... We also invite the State in our home by registering to make sure i'm following the guidlines.. Now let's say I just didn't do all of that... They still would'nt know I was smoking it... And if I never get caught i get no fine.. and if I do.. That's when this little activist will step up to the plate.. I'm so tired of being treated differently for my medicine... People that are perscribed Xanax ( A drug that has already killed two of my friends) don't have to go through any troubles when they need it. So... What I'm getting at is if you are in a state that is behind on marijuana laws.. Make sure you don't vote a bill in because it has loopholes.. Vote a bill in that actually helps society.. Like what Cali is now doing.. Let adults use it freely.. Tax it.. Regulate it.. Because it actually costs Michigan money to run this nonsense program and we can't afford things liek this anymore...
(http://www.superhighme.com/blog/shirts/oak_green.gif)
[size=24]Go Team!!![/size]
QuoteI haven't smoked weed for several years, but I used to, like a fiend. If this were to pass, I might partake a time or two a year, but I don't see my consumption frequency being altered much one way or another.
The timing in proposing this bill could be quite good though. With the state's finances A COMPLETE FUCKING DISASTER, the amount of tax income proposed will be pretty attractive...plus, ya know, it's weed, and it would be LEGAL!!! I know a few activist friends that must be going fucking nuts right now, mobilizing the troops.
God Bless California. 8-)
(http://humboldtclothing.com/catalog/images/newdesigns707,butterfly%20030.jpg)
In my opinion, this is why it should be legal. Here is a person that says either way, consumption will not increase. It makes the most sense. Tax the shit out of it, and run to the bank. Anyone know a legislator? Tell them this should be in the next bill to stimulate the economy. There is more money underground buying pot than being used in the US on a daily basis right now.
QuoteQuoteI haven't smoked weed for several years, but I used to, like a fiend. If this were to pass, I might partake a time or two a year, but I don't see my consumption frequency being altered much one way or another.
The timing in proposing this bill could be quite good though. With the state's finances A COMPLETE FUCKING DISASTER, the amount of tax income proposed will be pretty attractive...plus, ya know, it's weed, and it would be LEGAL!!! I know a few activist friends that must be going fucking nuts right now, mobilizing the troops.
God Bless California. 8-)
(http://humboldtclothing.com/catalog/images/newdesigns707,butterfly%20030.jpg)
In my opinion, this is why it should be legal. Here is a person that says either way, consumption will not increase. It makes the most sense. Tax the shit out of it, and run to the bank. Anyone know a legislator? Tell them this should be in the next bill to stimulate the economy. There is more money underground buying pot than being used in the US on a daily basis right now.
If marijuana were to be legalized, it's consumption would increase greatly. There would be smoking bars, there would be stores, there would be advertisements, different brands and potencies, etc... Can you imagine if weed was available at any party and it wasn't illegal? Come on, consumption would sky rocket!
The greatest deterrent to marijuana use is that it's illegal. You lift that restraint, have the government's permission, and the number of smokers would increase.
QuoteQuoteQuoteI haven't smoked weed for several years, but I used to, like a fiend. If this were to pass, I might partake a time or two a year, but I don't see my consumption frequency being altered much one way or another.
The timing in proposing this bill could be quite good though. With the state's finances A COMPLETE FUCKING DISASTER, the amount of tax income proposed will be pretty attractive...plus, ya know, it's weed, and it would be LEGAL!!! I know a few activist friends that must be going fucking nuts right now, mobilizing the troops.
God Bless California. 8-)
(http://humboldtclothing.com/catalog/images/newdesigns707,butterfly%20030.jpg)
In my opinion, this is why it should be legal. Here is a person that says either way, consumption will not increase. It makes the most sense. Tax the shit out of it, and run to the bank. Anyone know a legislator? Tell them this should be in the next bill to stimulate the economy. There is more money underground buying pot than being used in the US on a daily basis right now.
If marijuana were to be legalized, it's consumption would increase greatly. There would be smoking bars, there would be stores, there would be advertisements, different brands and potencies, etc... Can you imagine if weed was available at any party and it wasn't illegal? Come on, consumption would sky rocket!
The greatest deterrent to marijuana use is that it's illegal. You lift that restraint, have the government's permission, and the number of smokers would increase.
No it wouldn't. As it is, pot is pretty easy to get and people will still smoke around the same amount.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI haven't smoked weed for several years, but I used to, like a fiend. If this were to pass, I might partake a time or two a year, but I don't see my consumption frequency being altered much one way or another.
The timing in proposing this bill could be quite good though. With the state's finances A COMPLETE FUCKING DISASTER, the amount of tax income proposed will be pretty attractive...plus, ya know, it's weed, and it would be LEGAL!!! I know a few activist friends that must be going fucking nuts right now, mobilizing the troops.
God Bless California. 8-)
(http://humboldtclothing.com/catalog/images/newdesigns707,butterfly%20030.jpg)
In my opinion, this is why it should be legal. Here is a person that says either way, consumption will not increase. It makes the most sense. Tax the shit out of it, and run to the bank. Anyone know a legislator? Tell them this should be in the next bill to stimulate the economy. There is more money underground buying pot than being used in the US on a daily basis right now.
If marijuana were to be legalized, it's consumption would increase greatly. There would be smoking bars, there would be stores, there would be advertisements, different brands and potencies, etc... Can you imagine if weed was available at any party and it wasn't illegal? Come on, consumption would sky rocket!
The greatest deterrent to marijuana use is that it's illegal. You lift that restraint, have the government's permission, and the number of smokers would increase.
No it wouldn't. As it is, pot is pretty easy to get and people will still smoke around the same amount.
I believe you're 100% wrong. Do you think alcohol consumption would be the same if it were illegal and wasn't a billion dollar money maker?
How many people don't smoke b/c they will lose their job b/c it's illegal? Hell, open NBA/NFL/MLB use alone would skyrocket the use!!
If I wanted some weed right now, I would have to do some digging, and I'm just an ordinary citizen with a history (long ago) of smoking weed. If I wanted a beer, I could go to the store and have one in 2 minutes.
Do you have any idea how many people would turn on to weed if they had weed bars? If Phillip Morris got behind the advertising? Sponsored a NASCAR series? Think of college campuses where people drink but don't smoke. Most don't smoke b/c they don't want it on their record, it's taboo, etc... Come on, weed use would explode if it were legal; that's a no brainer.
Do you think people would still drive the speed limit if all of a sudden there was no speed limit? No. The number of people who would drive the old limits would dwindle in comparison to those who would drive faster.
I am sure there is truth to that Tracy. But it is California we are talking about. There is a lot of weed smoking on the west coast. A lot.
*quick modification...
Not only are there a ton of recreational users, there are a TON of non-violent offenders in Federal & State Prison doing some serious time for various offenses with weed. I do not feel threatened by most weed dealers or pot heads (Mexican Mafia excluded...but if it was legal, the Mexican Mafia would cease to smuggle marijuana).
**whoops on the grammatical error! ;)
QuoteI am sure there is truth to that Tracy. But it is California we are talking about. There is a lot of weed smoking on the west coast. A lot.
Tell me, how much weed you can buy at the grocery store in California? At a bar? At a convenience store? At a Raiders game?
What's that? None? And you don't think all those options would increase use? Come on man, think about it. ;)
QuoteQuoteI am sure there is truth to that Tracy. But it is California we are talking about. There is a lot of weed smoking on the west coast. A lot.
Tell me, how much weed you can buy at the grocery store in California? At a bar? At a convenience store? At a Raiders game?
What's that? None? And you don't think all those options would increase use? Come on man, think about it. ;)
Read above modification. People do not need to be in prison, wasting their lives away on my tax dollar for weed.
QuoteQuoteQuoteI am sure there is truth to that Tracy. But it is California we are talking about. There is a lot of weed smoking on the west coast. A lot.
Tell me, how much weed you can buy at the grocery store in California? At a bar? At a convenience store? At a Raiders game?
What's that? None? And you don't think all those options would increase use? Come on man, think about it. ;)
Read above modification. People do not need to be in prison, wasting their lives away on my tax dollar for weed.
I'm not against the legalization of marijuana. I'm just saying the use would rise if it were legal.
Right now, NIDA stats show 75-80% of college students will drink at some point, whereas 45-50% will smoke marijuana. The reason for the wide discrepancy between the use of these 2 DRUGS is that one is legal and one is illegal.
Do you think that possibly, the use of Alcohol would go down? That would be a good thing for society. I am not a teetotaler, but their are a lot social ills due to alcohol consumption.....
The use would go down because the quality would go up man. 8-)
;)
QuoteQuoteQuoteI am sure there is truth to that Tracy. But it is California we are talking about. There is a lot of weed smoking on the west coast. A lot.
Tell me, how much weed you can buy at the grocery store in California? At a bar? At a convenience store? At a Raiders game?
What's that? None? And you don't think all those options would increase use? Come on man, think about it. ;)
Read above modification. People do not need to be in prison, wasting their lives away on my tax dollar for weed.
Can't buy weed at a Raiders game?!?! Of course you can! ;D It's a black market transaction in the parking lot...or, should I say, a (Silver and) Black market transaction ;) And for the record, I have bought weed at bars, grocery and convenience stores in California...but I know what you're saying Tracy, and I agree with you. There are already A TON of pot smokers in California, but the convenience of legal pot will attract many who were nervous or clueless about it before. The increase will also occur from people like me, who haven't smoked or had a dealer in years, live in an unfamiliar town (as far as drug hookups are concerned) and don't want to score it on the street, but would gladly run to the corner herb store the couple times a year when the mood strikes.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pottax24-2009feb24,0,7534269.story
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."
QuoteDo you think that possibly, the use of Alcohol would go down? That would be a good thing for society. I am not a teetotaler, but their are a lot social ills due to alcohol consumption.....
Marijuana takes you to such a different place than alcohol, that my guess is there would be a slight decrease in alcohol use. I think alcohol lowers people's inhibitions (what they will say or do if drinking as opposed to sober) and marijuana doesn't affect inhibitions as much; in fact, I was more reluctant to be "brave and bold" on weed as I was on alcohol.
Bill Hicks used to say, "You're at a football game and a fight breaks out in the stands. Are these people high or drunk?" or "A person has a 1 night stand and totally regrets it, were they high or drunk?" or "2 people are really hungry. 1 goes out for food and wraps his car around a telephone pole, and the other can't stop giggling on the phone ordering pizza to be delivered. Which one was drunk and which one was high?"
my opinion, for what its worth. I don't use anything anymore (except caffiene).
And Wizz, I agree with you completely on changing the drug laws relative to jail time. Talk about a financial drain - the unnecessarily overburdened California prison system is a joke...
QuoteQuoteDo you think that possibly, the use of Alcohol would go down? That would be a good thing for society. I am not a teetotaler, but their are a lot social ills due to alcohol consumption.....
Marijuana takes you to such a different place than alcohol, that my guess is there would be a slight decrease in alcohol use. I think alcohol lowers people's inhibitions (what they will say or do if drinking as opposed to sober) and marijuana doesn't affect inhibitions as much; in fact, I was more reluctant to be "brave and bold" on weed as I was on alcohol.
Bill Hicks used to say, "You're at a football game and a fight breaks out in the stands. Are these people high or drunk?" or "A person has a 1 night stand and totally regrets it, were they high or drunk?" or "2 people are really hungry. 1 goes out for food and wraps his car around a telephone pole, and the other can't stop giggling on the phone ordering pizza to be delivered. Which one was drunk and which one was high?"
my opinion, for what its worth. I don't use anything anymore (except caffiene).
I agree. I stopped smoking only because of jobs and I started getting a little hard on myself for being a stoner in a dead end job. I prefer it to alcohol anytime.
In unrelated news, NJ's Gov. Corzine says he will sign a medical marijuana bill
Legal weed in California is a pipedream.
Does anyone remember prop 19 in 1972 stoners don't vote.
Don't new movies come out on Tuesday?
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI haven't smoked weed for several years, but I used to, like a fiend. If this were to pass, I might partake a time or two a year, but I don't see my consumption frequency being altered much one way or another.
The timing in proposing this bill could be quite good though. With the state's finances A COMPLETE FUCKING DISASTER, the amount of tax income proposed will be pretty attractive...plus, ya know, it's weed, and it would be LEGAL!!! I know a few activist friends that must be going fucking nuts right now, mobilizing the troops.
God Bless California. 8-)
(http://humboldtclothing.com/catalog/images/newdesigns707,butterfly%20030.jpg)
In my opinion, this is why it should be legal. Here is a person that says either way, consumption will not increase. It makes the most sense. Tax the shit out of it, and run to the bank. Anyone know a legislator? Tell them this should be in the next bill to stimulate the economy. There is more money underground buying pot than being used in the US on a daily basis right now.
If marijuana were to be legalized, it's consumption would increase greatly. There would be smoking bars, there would be stores, there would be advertisements, different brands and potencies, etc... Can you imagine if weed was available at any party and it wasn't illegal? Come on, consumption would sky rocket!
The greatest deterrent to marijuana use is that it's illegal. You lift that restraint, have the government's permission, and the number of smokers would increase.
Do you think people would still drive the speed limit if all of a sudden there was no speed limit? No. The number of people who would drive the old limits would dwindle in comparison to those who would drive faster.
Do you know how many people would drive UNDER the speed limit if they legalized weed? ;D
I do agree with you Tracy that consumption would indeed increase. I myself know people that only refrained from use only due to its illegality.
QuoteThe use would go down because the quality would go up man. 8-)
;)
;D
QuoteQuoteQuoteHere's my legal buzzkill:
There's a pesky case called Gonzales v Raich from 2005 (2005 was a horrible year for Supreme Court Cases). It basically said that when it comes to weed and states doing their own thing, Congress has the power to say "not so fast" before you can even burn some popcorn. Of the 3 justices who thought the case was absurd (in very well-reasoned dissents), 2 no longer sit (Rehnquist and O'Connor). So that doesn't bode well.
However, something like this COULD provide a chance to revisit the case. And with Clarence Thomas already one of the dissenters, and Scalia not totally buying the original argument, AND since Obama seems to be fairly ambivalent on the issue, AND with Ginsberg on the outs, we have hope.
If this hope came out and reversed that case, it could potentially open the door to a lot of great things since it would give states a bit more autonomy.
It seems that so far, when it comes to medicinal purposes, the law has already survied for 14 years, so even if the puritans and assholes in congress wanna shit on this, they might not have too much luck.
/class dismissed.
And on a personal level, I only don't smoke now because of job concerns, not out of fear of the law.
Lot more than pesky. We'll see if it is revisited. Of course it came down to ""could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision is unquestionably substantial." It's all about aggregation baby!
Anyone have any studies that include models that predict the short and long term affects on crime based on legalization?
No more prosecution of minor offenders vs. increase in say robberies by former street level dealers now out of income
i think i remember being shocked that O'Connor was on the other side for this? even if this is revisited, given the makeup of the court, i don't think it'll change; (although w/obama in office, less federal busts) i just don't see it ever being legal; states can do what they want, but if the feds can always come in and bust, then people won't feel completely free; it's so stupid.
:-)
I agree PL. Unless there is a federal statutory change, I don't see any different interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Ahh memories of
Wickard v. Filburn
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI haven't smoked weed for several years, but I used to, like a fiend. If this were to pass, I might partake a time or two a year, but I don't see my consumption frequency being altered much one way or another.
The timing in proposing this bill could be quite good though. With the state's finances A COMPLETE FUCKING DISASTER, the amount of tax income proposed will be pretty attractive...plus, ya know, it's weed, and it would be LEGAL!!! I know a few activist friends that must be going fucking nuts right now, mobilizing the troops.
God Bless California. 8-)
(http://humboldtclothing.com/catalog/images/newdesigns707,butterfly%20030.jpg)
In my opinion, this is why it should be legal. Here is a person that says either way, consumption will not increase. It makes the most sense. Tax the shit out of it, and run to the bank. Anyone know a legislator? Tell them this should be in the next bill to stimulate the economy. There is more money underground buying pot than being used in the US on a daily basis right now.
If marijuana were to be legalized, it's consumption would increase greatly. There would be smoking bars, there would be stores, there would be advertisements, different brands and potencies, etc... Can you imagine if weed was available at any party and it wasn't illegal? Come on, consumption would sky rocket!
The greatest deterrent to marijuana use is that it's illegal. You lift that restraint, have the government's permission, and the number of smokers would increase.
Do you think people would still drive the speed limit if all of a sudden there was no speed limit? No. The number of people who would drive the old limits would dwindle in comparison to those who would drive faster.
Do you know how many people would drive UNDER the speed limit if they legalized weed? ;D
;D