Yes, it could and it may even come with the added benefit of finally bringing reason and sanity to drug laws in the United States.

"The last thing we need is yet another mind-altering substance to be legalized," says John Lovell, lobbyist for the California Peace Officers' Association.

Don't worry, there will be plenty of real criminals to catch. Sure, it's probably more fun to have no-knock warrants against pot smokers, but murderers and thieves will still be available.

Plus, when you break into the home of a wanted murderer, you don't have to plant a dead body at the crime scene.

It'll never happen:

Big pharma hates the idea that anyone can grow it at home.
Law enforcement uses it to justify getting more money.
The medical industry hates it because pot would solve a lot of stress.

Let's see, they can't keep their overcrowded prisons staffed, and can't even afford medical care dictated by courts for those prisons. And, oh yeah, having spent time in humboldt county I can pretty much say: "yeah, that's the local economy".

doesn't make any sense for california to keep pissing money away like this, ruining people's lives, and ignoring an economic goldmine.

But, this is why I'm not in charge of important things...

One more thing:

Joel W. Hay, professor of Pharmaceutical Economics at USC, also foresees harm if the bill passes. "Marijuana is a drug that clouds people's judgment. It affects their ability to concentrate and react and it certainly has impacts on third parties," says Hay, who has written on the societal costs of drug abuse.

A professor of Pharmaceutical Economics should be very familiar with this graph:


Have the tax revenue pay for the social costs, and you are set.

Has anyone ever done a study on how much the price of marijuana would change if they legalized it and taxed it?

I'd have to believe that the price would fall through the floor. It'd also be interesting to see the companies that came to the forefront of the legalized marijuana market. Not to mention what cool shiat they came up with once they threw some of their profits in to R&D.

Also, it'd be interesting to see how gangs reacted to other illegal drugs once their stranglehold on marijuana disappeared.

eqtworld: Well, it's hard to argue that the government makes more money by taxing something and having income than by spending money to slow an underground economy.

but i'm guessing someone will come in and argue that anyway...

Yes, it could and it should. I'm also up for burritos.

/Nobody makes 'em like Cali makes 'em.

1619 - America's first law is enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia, ordering all farmers to grow hemp.

The first law REQUIRED us to grow hemp (it makes strong sails and rope)

Look at how far we've come

they should really do this.

i don't smoke marijuana, but i'm vehemently in favor of its legalization. there is virtually no valid argument against it, frankly. and the benefits are myriad.

legalize it. tax it. and stand back and watch crime rates drop and revenues increase.

I don't smoke _{a lot of} marijuana _anymore but we are wasting so much money, law enforcement resources, and jailing people who do not need to be in jail.

Legalize it, tax it, and use the revenue to treat people addicted to harder drugs.

eddyatwork: It'll never happen:

Big pharma hates the idea that anyone can grow it at home.
Law enforcement uses it to justify getting more money.
The medical industry hates it because pot would solve a lot of stress.

Sad, but true. These are some very powerful lobbies to fight.

Despite the projected and much-needed revenue, opponents say legalizing pot will only add to social woes. "The last thing we need is yet another mind-altering substance to be legalized," says John Lovell, lobbyist for the California Peace Officers' Association. "We have enough problems with alcohol and abuse of pharmaceutical products: do we really need to add yet another mind-altering substance to the array?" Lovell says the easy availability of the drug will lead to a surge in its use, much like what happened when alcohol was allowed to be sold in venues other than liquor stores in some states.

statements like this make NO sense to me. What mr. law and order here seems to not understand is that people are ALREADY using said 'mind alterting' substance. What California is proposing to do is to just tap into an already established market and tax it. Cannabis is already easily available too, so that's not even an issue. the savings in reduced strain on the california justice system alone would be millions a year.

If it is legalized... I'm buying stock in Visine.

Weaver95: The savings in reduced strain on the california justice system alone would be millions a year.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure many of these people assume that imprisoning all the drug users is a social good, and that the inability to do that will significantly increase the stress on the system by creating a route for people to engage in fervent abuse of themselves with little ability for the public to rectify externalities to itself.

Whether he is right or wrong is a different issue. For marijuana, I would consider him wrong. For a drug like meth, there may be no tax that would rectify the harms you do to yourself (to answer Snarfangel's point).

/the idea about whether or not you have a right to do the drugs is also a separate, but intertwined, issue.

FlashHarry: i don't smoke marijuana, but i'm vehemently in favor of its legalization. there is virtually no valid argument against it, frankly. and the benefits are myriad.

I don't smoke either, but I would if it were legalized.

I think a good model would be to make it legal to grow personally in small amounts, but illegal to sell without a government license. Similar to how beer is treated now.

I can brew my own beer (which is a lot harder than growing and drying a plant) in limited quantities, but I'm not allowed to sell it.

RocketRod: If it is legalized... I'm buying stock in Visine.

Johnson and Johnson

sloppy shoes: Whether he is right or wrong is a different issue. For marijuana, I would consider him wrong. For a drug like meth, there may be no tax that would rectify the harms you do to yourself (to answer Snarfangel's point).

Anyone who thinks cannabis is exactly the same as meth or heroin is too stupid to be allowed to live.

That's yet another problem with our war on drugs - we assume that all drugs are exactly the same, and we treat them with a 'one size fits all' mentality.

FTA:

"It's one more drug that will add to the toll on society. All we have to do is look at the two legalized drugs, tobacco and alcohol, and look at the carnage that they've caused. [Marijuana] is a dangerous drug and it causes bad outcomes for both the people who use it and for the people who are in their way at work or other activities."

There it is folks. Tacit admission that someone wants to ban liquor and tobacco.

Weaver95:
That's yet another problem with our war on drugs - we assume that all drugs are exactly the same, and we treat them with a 'one size fits all' mentality.

Yes. We do give off that perception. (Though marijuana laws are certainly becoming relaxed). I think the bigger problem is there is no honest national discussion. We are in a sense, afraid. We are afraid of the signals it will send to kids, we are afraid of the consequences it will mean for our drug laws and attitudes. We, as a nation, have become afraid of a good too many things.


The Icelander:
I don't smoke either, but I would if it were legalized.


I don't know about your specific company- but many would either drug test more or keep drug testing for marijuana.

sloppy shoes: I don't know about your specific company- but many would either drug test more or keep drug testing for marijuana.

If my company implements a drug testing policy, I'd be the first to know.

\self employed

sloppy shoes: I don't know about your specific company- but many would either drug test more or keep drug testing for marijuana.

Also, I could understand firing you for being high on the job, which could be confirmed with a urine test. But I don't know why they'd fire you for smoking while your off the clock if it's not affecting your performance.

Of course, in right-to-work states you could be fired for any reason at all.

The Icelander:
If my company implements a drug testing policy, I'd be the first to know.

\self employed

Good for you sir!

But I think it should be a general note to all the people who expect to smoke it, especially if this becomes a legal fad across the country. Many companies will still disapprove, I'm guessing.

TFA: "There are probably some responsible people who can handle marijuana but there are lots of people who can't, and it has an enormous negative impact on them, their family and loved ones."

Alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, and alcohol is legal and heavily taxed.

My hair doesn't even have to be a bird for this argument to be invalid.

Weaver95: That's yet another problem with our war on drugs - we assume that all drugs are exactly the same, and we treat them with a 'one size fits all' mentality.

Not true at all. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug and is therefore rated as more dangerous than Schedule II drugs. Crack cocaine, for instance, is a Schedule II drug.

sloppy shoes: Yes. We do give off that perception. (Though marijuana laws are certainly becoming relaxed). I think the bigger problem is there is no honest national discussion. We are in a sense, afraid. We are afraid of the signals it will send to kids, we are afraid of the consequences it will mean for our drug laws and attitudes. We, as a nation, have become afraid of a good too many things.

Notice how the message has changed recently. Like the anti pot ad where the guy says "I stole from my little sister" The only way a stoner would do that is if she had a stash and wouldn't share.

sloppy shoes: I don't know about your specific company- but many would either drug test more or keep drug testing for marijuana.

Probably at initial employment interviews, yeah. Or after an accident. But companies don't randomly test employees for drug use without reason. Not out of any sense of decency or privacy but because it's too expensive.

I've never understood why we don't pass a law that requires random drug tests of all elected officials and CEO/corporate officers. I think that if we're going to really make a difference with illegal drugs and our larger 'war on intoxication' then why in the hell do we let congressmen vote drunk? or maybe even vote when they're high?

sloppy shoes: Good for you sir!

Thanks! I'm really excited. I put in my two weeks today at my old job, and already have enough work on retainer to maintain my standard of living, as well as some very big projects lined up for the future.

Plus it will be awesome to go to my ten year reunion next year and say I own a consulting firm. (Even if it is just me.)

The Icelander:
Also, I could understand firing you for being high on the job, which could be confirmed with a urine test. But I don't know why they'd fire you for smoking while your off the clock if it's not affecting your performance.

If it were legalized- insurance. Your insurance company would offer you lower policy rates if you drug tested.

But, I suspect there is still a decently large percentage of the population that won't like its legalization, and will disapprove the drug on moral grounds- whether you're high at work or at home. There will also be the people who believe that if you get high at home, it permanently (or at least for an extended period of time) dampens your brain's capacity, and would believe they could do better hiring a clean employee.

timujin: Not true at all. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug and is therefore rated as more dangerous than Schedule II drugs. Crack cocaine, for instance, is a Schedule II drug.

Here's a list of what's currently on the Schedule I list.

Amazing when you consider that the US government considers cannabis to be exactly the same as heroin.

The Icelander:
Thanks! I'm really excited. I put in my two weeks today at my old job, and already have enough work on retainer to maintain my standard of living, as well as some very big projects lined up for the future.

Plus it will be awesome to go to my ten year reunion next year and say I own a consulting firm. (Even if it is just me.)


I wish you the best of luck. Hopefully you'll soon make enough money that you can be rightfully outraged by that tax and spend liberal Obama! If you aren't so already ;-)

sloppy shoes: I wish you the best of luck. Hopefully you'll soon make enough money that you can be rightfully outraged by that tax and spend liberal Obama! If you aren't so already ;-)

If I make over $250,000 I'll be too busy buying a new house and a new car to care.

Weaver95: Amazing when you consider that the US government considers cannabis to be exactly the same as heroin.

Wait, it isn't?

*puts needle full of weed down*

I think I've been going about this all wrong.

Weaver95:
I've never understood why we don't pass a law that requires random drug tests of all elected officials and CEO/corporate officers. I think that if we're going to really make a difference with illegal drugs and our larger 'war on intoxication' then why in the hell do we let congressmen vote drunk? or maybe even vote when they're high?

Why would they? It would be a dramatic decrease in the amount of perceived respect they receive. When you're that high up, it's assumed you are at the top of your game and competent. (Even though there are numerous examples otherwise). It would be a harsh political move and one that would make the legislature look like McDonald's employees.

The Icelander: Also, I could understand firing you for being high on the job, which could be confirmed with a urine test. But I don't know why they'd fire you for smoking while your off the clock if it's not affecting your performance.

sadly, testing positive for thc only shows that you have smoked in the last month or so. afaik there is no test to see if you are currently high.

RocketRod: If it is legalized... I'm buying stock in Visine.

I'm opting for Frito-Lay myself.

sloppy shoes: Why would they? It would be a dramatic decrease in the amount of perceived respect they receive. When you're that high up, it's assumed you are at the top of your game and competent. (Even though there are numerous examples otherwise). It would be a harsh political move and one that would make the legislature look like McDonald's employees.

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance is zero tolerance. you can't pass zero tolerance laws and then give yourself a free pass.

The Icelander:
If I make over $250,000 I'll be too busy buying a new house and a new car to care.

Well, if you haven't bought a wife yet, it's $150,000 that you have to worry about. Unless you have some youngin's scampering about.

A lot of the weed sold in the US comes down from Canada. Canadian weed decimated the market for Norcal sensi. Tariffs on Canadian weed would rejuvenate California's economy.

/blame Canada

Weaver95: Zero tolerance is zero tolerance is zero tolerance. you can't pass zero tolerance laws and then give yourself a free pass.

But you're missing the point. They are US SENATORS. REPRESENTATIVES. THE PRESIDENT. By virtue of their position they are gods until proven guilty.

sloppy shoes: Well, if you haven't bought a wife yet, it's $150,000 that you have to worry about. Unless you have some youngin's scampering about.

Have a wife, a kid, and another on the way in August.

\Also, wife has fantastic health insurance through her government job

The Icelander:
Have a wife, a kid, and another on the way in August.

\Also, wife has fantastic health insurance through her government job

Congratulations again! May he giggle when you play, and grow up to carry a smile every day. Many future successes upon your house are in order!

sloppy shoes: Weaver95: Zero tolerance is zero tolerance is zero tolerance. you can't pass zero tolerance laws and then give yourself a free pass.

But you're missing the point. They are US SENATORS. REPRESENTATIVES. THE PRESIDENT. By virtue of their position they are gods until proven guilty.

Hey, they said zero tolerance. zero tolerance is zero tolerance is zero tolerance. that means they have to get drug tested as well.

Weaver95: sloppy shoes: Weaver95: Zero tolerance is zero tolerance is zero tolerance. you can't pass zero tolerance laws and then give yourself a free pass.

But you're missing the point. They are US SENATORS. REPRESENTATIVES. THE PRESIDENT. By virtue of their position they are gods until proven guilty.

Hey, they said zero tolerance. zero tolerance is zero tolerance is zero tolerance. that means they have to get drug tested as well.

If we do this, maybe we'll find out just what Arlen Specter's been smoking all these years.

SilentStrider: If we do this, maybe we'll find out just what Arlen Specter's been smoking all these years.

I'm not sure I want to know. I just want him GONE. He's voted for damn near every tax hike that's come his way for his ENTIRE career.

Weaver95: I just want him GONE. He's voted for damn near every tax hike that's come his way for his ENTIRE career.

I don't know. He's kind of grown on me.

\Dem

Well...that's just, like, your opinion man.

Just curious...If it is California's large cash crop now, then what makes them think they will be able to track it or tax it any better once legal.

I think it should be legal, but nothing is stopping everyone from growing it themselves. Are they going to tax my tomato plants too?

I'm looking forward to the other side if legal pot. I would be very happy to hear that the product I'm buying is being regulated the same way food is, is regularly tested for poisons and contaminants, and I don't have to worry that the last guy I bought it from gets a thrill from dipping it in antifreeze.