Arnold Wants to Legalize MJ to get the Tax Money!

[Pidgey]

Frankly, I don't care. Don't know how much tax revenue that would generate, but he'd probably be stepping on somebody's profits in a big way. I couldn't care less if people toke all they want as long as I don't have to carry them at work or get creamed by them in traffic if they're under the influence.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usPoliticsNews/idUKTRE54503R20090506

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ahhhnold's got no choice in-the-matter.

​

 

[PLC1]

Frankly, I don't care. Don't know how much tax revenue that would generate, but he'd probably be stepping on somebody's profits in a big way. I couldn't care less if people toke all they want as long as I don't have to carry them at work or get creamed by them in traffic if they're under the influence.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usPoliticsNews/idUKTRE54503R20090506

Legalizing Marijuana and treating it like alcohol would no doubt be a good idea. It won't happen, for a variety of reasons.

For one thing, pot laws are federal. California can't legalize pot until the feds allow it.

For another, yes, doing so would be stepping on someone's toes. First, the moralists and authoritarians would try to shred any pol who suggested such a thing. If they were unsuccessful, there is a good chance that the drug dealers would mount a huge ad campaign, and failing that, hire a hit man.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Legalizing Marijuana and treating it like alcohol would no doubt be a good idea. It won't happen, for a variety of reasons.

​

 

[samsara15]

Frankly, I don't care. Don't know how much tax revenue that would generate, but he'd probably be stepping on somebody's profits in a big way. I couldn't care less if people toke all they want as long as I don't have to carry them at work or get creamed by them in traffic if they're under the influence.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usPoliticsNews/idUKTRE54503R20090506

I can sympathize with that viewpoint. Let's make them fully responsible for what they do while under the influence, and ease the tax burden on the rest of us.

 

[Bunz]

There are some really interesting ways that it could help address some of the serious issues California finds itself in, and certainly one of them would be through decriminalizing measures and finding a reasonable way to tax it, at nearly every level, but also still have the safeguards in place to protect the public.

I think key to it would be regulating it through its individual usage, and ensuring that it is still illegal to drive under the influence, and setting an age limit, some places off limits to consume etc. There are a few examples from other places around the world that certainly could serve as a working model, and tweak that as needed to suit California or American systems.

Then this will lift a much needed burden in the court and penal systems. Not to mention the time and change of focus that law enforcement could be had in not arresting otherwise law abiding citizens for having a joint.

 

[Bunz]

Legalizing Marijuana and treating it like alcohol would no doubt be a good idea. It won't happen, for a variety of reasons.

For one thing, pot laws are federal. California can't legalize pot until the feds allow it.

Well that is a tricky question. Alaska has moved a bill through the house judiciary committee(I think) that pertains to skirting potential federal law on any new legislation regarding firearms. There is a potential for that because the feds are only supposed to regulate interstate commerce, and any marijuana grown is to be consumed in California.
http://housemajority.org/spon.php?id=26HB186
Also, the Justice department has a fair amount of discression in what takes priority on indictments etc.
I have read a few months ago that the Obama administration has made dealing with the dispenseries a low priority. The same was the case in Alaska after the AKSC upheld the Ravin decision, meaning that small amounts of marijuana in private homes were simply not prosecuted.

For another, yes, doing so would be stepping on someone's toes. First, the moralists and authoritarians would try to shred any pol who suggested such a thing.

Its California, hell isnt anything possible there? Arnold Schwarzenegger is the Governor. Ill rest my case at that.

If they were unsuccessful, there is a good chance that the drug dealers would mount a huge ad campaign, and failing that, hire a hit man.

Somehow I doubt that the drug dealers would somehow form thier own PAC. Nor do I think there would be much hit man stuff going on, to warrant enough fear that would make a tidal change in the views on how to deal with marijuna.

 

[Andy]

My problem is that this is a cover for bad economic policy. The socialist style policies of California have brought them to bankruptcy. But instead of dealing with the underlining issue, he's trying to tax his way out of the problem. This doesn't work.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

There are some really interesting ways that it could help address some of the serious issues California finds itself in, and certainly one of them would be through decriminalizing measures and finding a reasonable way to tax it, at nearly every level, but also still have the safeguards in place to protect the public.

I think key to it would be regulating it through its individual usage, and ensuring that it is still illegal to drive under the influence, and setting an age limit, some places off limits to consume etc. There are a few examples from other places around the world that certainly could serve as a working model, and tweak that as needed to suit California or American systems.

That's all that any mature/"experinced"-user would request.

NOW, we've gotta remind The DEA, who's workin' for WHO!!!! ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

My problem is that this is a cover for bad economic policy. The socialist style policies of California have brought them to bankruptcy.

Yeah, Skippy.....that's what it was....socialist style policies of California.



.....And, then.....Ahhhnold came-to-the-re$cue.​

"The 90-minute secret meeting Lay convened took place inside a conference room at the Peninsula Hotel. Lay, and other Enron representatives at the meeting, handed out a four-page document to Schwarzenegger, Riordan and Milken titled "Comprehensive Solution for California," which called for an end to federal and state investigations into Enron's role in the California energy crisis and said consumers should pay for the state's disastrous experiment with deregulation through multibillion rate increases. Another bullet point in the four-page document said "Get deregulation right this time -- California needs a real electricity market, not government takeovers."

The irony of that statement is that California's flawed power market design helped Enron earn more than $500 million in one year, a tenfold increase in profits from a previous year and it's coordinated effort in manipulating the price of electricity in California, which other power companies mimicked, cost the state close to $70 billion and led to the beginning of what is now the state's $38 billion budget deficit. The power crisis forced dozens of businesses to close down or move to other states, where cheaper electricity was in abundant supply, and greatly reduced the revenue California relied heavily upon."​

I guess you'd have to be old-enough to remember this energy-hu$tle (designed to jettison Gray Davis)....Skippy!!

​

"At a time when streets in Northern California were lit only by head lights, factories shut down and families were trapped in elevators, Enron Energy traders laughed:

"Just cut 'em off. They're so f----d. They should just bring back f-----g horses and carriages, f-----g lamps, f-----g kerosene lamps."

In another tape a trader laughed when describing his reaction when a business owner complained about high energy prices:

“I just looked at him. I said, ‘Move.’ (laughter) The guy was like horrified. I go, ‘Look, don’t take it the wrong way. Move. It isn’t getting fixed anytime soon.”

When a forest fire shut down a major power line into California, cutting down power supplies and raising prices, Enron energy traders were heard laughing and celebrating, singing ‘burn, baby, burn.’​

 

[PLC1]

My problem is that this is a cover for bad economic policy. The socialist style policies of California have brought them to bankruptcy. But instead of dealing with the underlining issue, he's trying to tax his way out of the problem. This doesn't work.

New taxes and new borrowing are cover for bad economic policy, yes. Until the state cuts back spending, there won't be a real fix for the economic woes.

Still, legalizing pot would take a huge burden off of the penal system, as well as raising some tax revenue.

And, given this statement by Bunz:

Its California, hell isnt anything possible there? Arnold Schwarzenegger is the Governor. Ill rest my case at that.

It is, indeed, California, and anything is possible. There is some hope for a rational drug policy, if only the feds will back off.

 

[Bunz]

My problem is that this is a cover for bad economic policy. The socialist style policies of California have brought them to bankruptcy. But instead of dealing with the underlining issue, he's trying to tax his way out of the problem. This doesn't work.

I wont disagree that much. If I lived in California I would probably be a hard core GOP supporter. I cant believe what the average Californian has allowed to happen with thier state government, and well life in general there.

While I dont think anyone but someone high on the stuff in question would think that a great shift policy when it comes to mj, even to maximize the tax revenue and letting a lot of people off the hook legally I might make a dent in the issue. Certainly no fix.

 

[Bunz]

And, given this statement by Bunz:

It is, indeed, California, and anything is possible. There is some hope for a rational drug policy, if only the feds will back off.

Well, I dont know how you manage in PLC, I am not sure what part of the state you live in, but having seen quite a bit of California, I couldnt see myself living in %92 of those areas. But I am sure many share the same view about my state...either way.

When sattelite tv became available here about 5 years ago, for the first 2 years, our local channels were LA based. The recall was going on, and I could not believe the amount of political ads and overall nastiness they were by nature.

I will say the sequoias are impressive. Also, the amount of agriculture.

OK...back on topic. As for the feds taking a step back, I would say the possibility is likely.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/obamas_drug_czar_sails.php

 

[Andy]

I wont disagree that much. If I lived in California I would probably be a hard core GOP supporter. I cant believe what the average Californian has allowed to happen with thier state government, and well life in general there.

While I dont think anyone but someone high on the stuff in question would think that a great shift policy when it comes to mj, even to maximize the tax revenue and letting a lot of people off the hook legally I might make a dent in the issue. Certainly no fix.

I doubt it. Legalizing alcohol after the end of prohibition sure didn't make a dent in our national debt.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I doubt it. Legalizing alcohol after the end of prohibition sure didn't make a dent in our national debt.

How long did it take you, to make-up THAT one, Skippy??

Is Annie "Bones" Coulter offering some kind o' correspondence-course in Makin' Up Sh*t????

​

"Prior to the creation in 1913 of the national income tax, about a third of Uncle Sam's annual revenue came from liquor taxes. (The bulk of Uncle Sam's revenues came from customs duties.) Not so after 1913. Especially after the income tax surprised politicians during World War I with its incredible ability to rake in tax revenue, the importance of liquor taxation fell precipitously.

By 1920, the income tax supplied two-thirds of Uncle Sam's revenues and nine times more revenue than was then supplied by liquor taxes and customs duties combined. In research that I did with University of Michigan law professor Adam Pritchard, we found that bulging income-tax revenues made it possible for Congress finally to give in to the decades-old movement for alcohol prohibition.

Before the income tax, Congress effectively ignored such calls because to prohibit alcohol sales then would have hit Congress hard in the place it guards most zealously: its purse. But once a new and much more intoxicating source of revenue was discovered, the cost to politicians of pandering to the puritans and other anti-liquor lobbies dramatically fell.

Prohibition was launched.

Despite pleas throughout the 1920s by journalist H.L. Mencken and a tiny handful of other sensible people to end Prohibition, Congress gave no hint that it would repeal this folly. Prohibition appeared to be here to stay -- until income-tax revenues nose-dived in the early 1930s.

From 1930 to 1931, income-tax revenues fell by 15 percent.

In 1932 they fell another 37 percent; 1932 income-tax revenues were 46 percent lower than just two years earlier. And by 1933 they were fully 60 percent lower than in 1930.

With no end of the Depression in sight, Washington got anxious for a substitute source of revenue.

That source was liquor sales.

There's no doubt that widespread understanding of Prohibition's futility and of its ugly, unintended side-effects made it easier for Congress to repeal the 18th Amendment. But these public sentiments were insufficient, by themselves, to end the war on alcohol.

Ending it required a gargantuan revenue shock -- to the U.S. Treasury.

So, if the history of alcohol prohibition is a guide, drug prohibition will not end merely because there are many sound, sensible and humane reasons to end it. Instead, it will end only if and when Congress gets desperate for another revenue $ource.

That's the sorry logic of politics and Prohibition."​