• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?

marduc said:
it is absurd you can not grasp the concept of an analogy and what it is actually analogous to when it is used.

let me walk you through step by step here this

The california budget is losing money.. analogous to blood.

you put more money (blood) into the coffers (body)

You have breathing room to figure out the cause of the bleeding (loss of money) and do something about it.
Click to expand...

Lets take your scenario.

The man takes a grevious injury and is spurting blood and it seems every few minutes even more blood starts pouring out.

Now, yes, you need to get more blood into the body.

However JUST getting blood into the body is not going to "rescue" the body, because it will just bleed it all back out again. All it is doing is prolonging the issue.

Thus why some are arguing that Pot isn't going to magically "rescue" California's economy all on its own.

Now lets keep going to further explain peoples rational.

So you do the blood transfusion, new blood is in the body but its still coming out at a bad clip.

Now, the next step, is STOPPING the bleeding (well, that should've came before the transfusion if possible). But lets say the doctors there, for whatever reason, simply don't have the medical knowledge to actually figure out how to successfully stop the bleeding.

This is the issue of some other posters in here. Essentially, that the politicians in California do not have, in this case the will, to do the massive spending cuts that would need to be done simultaneously to stop the bleeding.

Finally, in your analogy, our patient is STILL not out of the woods because we haven't addressed the underlining illness that has caused him to bleed from all over his body. If he goes untreated he may be well for a while but soon enough he's going to start bleeding again.

In this case, people talking about this in this thread that say that Marijuana alone isn't going to Rescue California's economy basically is of the belief that the politicians and the laws in Cali make it so that the root causes that made this happen stay in place.

So to "save" this person that is having blood flow out of them is to not only give them a transfusion, but to close the wound, and then solve the underlining issue. If all of those things aren't done, then its setting the person up for death again...it just depends if its soon or a little later.

So what they're saying is the transfusion alone, Marijuana and Hemp alone, is not going to "Rescue" anything unless some significant changes happens at a law and governmental level...which they appear to believe won't be the case.
 
Why is the word "help" so hard to understand, or ignored in these arguments. I am not denying there is an underlying spending problem. Of course marijauana is not going to be the magic panacea for all that ails Ca.

The OP, the article it is based on, and the argument is "Can marijuana help rescue California's economy".

The argument has morphed from "Can it help" to "Will it be the magical salvation." Different arguments entirely, and not consistent or honest with the thread, the article, or the OP.
 
I agree, it could help rescue California's economy.

But I can see people who believe that NOTHING will truly HELP California's economy until they fix the underlining issues with those economy.

In your blood transfusion example, you're not really "helping" a guy in any reality if giving him a transfusion just extends his agonizing blood spewing life an extra minute.

I don't agree completely with the people who think this way, but I fully understand their view that marijuana or anything else is not going to help the economy in any way in California till there are steps taken to actually make the foundation of california work.
 
Zyphlin said:
but I fully understand their view that marijuana or anything else is not going to help the economy in any way in California till there are steps taken to actually make the foundation of california work.
Click to expand...

As do I, but that is a different argument.

The transfusion buys you time and eases pressure, albeit briefly, to address the underlying problem, if the patient were to bleed out and die otherwise prior to being able to staunch the bleeding, then that transfusion indeed does help.

There also will be blood remaining in the I.V. bag afterward to replenish the badly needed stores of blood to help the patient to recuperate a bit quicker.
 
That's the thing...

The people saying it won't help simply because of how California opperates are essentially saying that there's no one there with the knowledge of medicine needed to address the underlying problem or to even administer the blood transfusion properly.

Its only a "help" if you believe that it can possibly lead to something better. If you don't have any faith that the California politicians can fix the core issues, then the "help" it would possibly give is nil.
 
Zyphlin said:
Lets take your scenario.

The man takes a grevious injury and is spurting blood and it seems every few minutes even more blood starts pouring out.

Now, yes, you need to get more blood into the body.

However JUST getting blood into the body is not going to "rescue" the body, because it will just bleed it all back out again. All it is doing is prolonging the issue.

Thus why some are arguing that Pot isn't going to magically "rescue" California's economy all on its own.

Now lets keep going to further explain peoples rational.

So you do the blood transfusion, new blood is in the body but its still coming out at a bad clip.

Now, the next step, is STOPPING the bleeding (well, that should've came before the transfusion if possible). But lets say the doctors there, for whatever reason, simply don't have the medical knowledge to actually figure out how to successfully stop the bleeding.

This is the issue of some other posters in here. Essentially, that the politicians in California do not have, in this case the will, to do the massive spending cuts that would need to be done simultaneously to stop the bleeding.

Finally, in your analogy, our patient is STILL not out of the woods because we haven't addressed the underlining illness that has caused him to bleed from all over his body. If he goes untreated he may be well for a while but soon enough he's going to start bleeding again.

In this case, people talking about this in this thread that say that Marijuana alone isn't going to Rescue California's economy basically is of the belief that the politicians and the laws in Cali make it so that the root causes that made this happen stay in place.

So to "save" this person that is having blood flow out of them is to not only give them a transfusion, but to close the wound, and then solve the underlining issue. If all of those things aren't done, then its setting the person up for death again...it just depends if its soon or a little later.

So what they're saying is the transfusion alone, Marijuana and Hemp alone, is not going to "Rescue" anything unless some significant changes happens at a law and governmental level...which they appear to believe won't be the case.
Click to expand...

Well stated, however it will fall on blind eyes; your patience is far beyond my capacity for tolerance and I applaud you for it.

:2wave:
 
Truth Detector said:
You once more would be wrong with this assertion. California was in it's troubles long before the recent economic events and has been in this problem for decades NOT because of a LACK of revenue, revenues have increased by over 40% over the last five years, but because we have a boatload of ignorant Liberal Democrat politicians in Sacramento who spend the vast amounts of revenue that come into Sacramento faster than it comes in.

It's not that WE have a revenue problem; it is a SPENDING problem which appears to be a common affliction with Liberals and Democrats.

The notion that POT, or HEMP, or LOTTERIES, or Indian Gaming revenue will somehow stem the tide of red ink Liberal Politicians in California negligently spend requires the willing suspension of logic and reality.

Read my lips; NO amount of revenue can stem the stupidity that currently infests Sacramento much like the current stupidity that infests the Federal Bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

What are some of these spending programs that you think are causing all of CA problems?

I lived in CA, for about 15 years during the tech boom and it was doing fine. I was there when Gray Davis was ousted and it was still doing fine...
 
Zyphlin said:
Now, the next step, is STOPPING the bleeding (well, that should've came before the transfusion if possible). But lets say the doctors there, for whatever reason, simply don't have the medical knowledge to actually figure out how to successfully stop the bleeding.

This is the issue of some other posters in here. Essentially, that the politicians in California do not have, in this case the will, to do the massive spending cuts that would need to be done simultaneously to stop the bleeding.
Click to expand...

Your analogy is falling down here.

California isn't in the hands of "doctors" who have the desire to stop the bleeding but are unsure of how to go about it.

California's been taken over by a team off vampires and their goal isn't merely to keep the body bleeding, but to increase the flow of blood no matter what.


Zyphlin said:
Finally, in your analogy, our patient is STILL not out of the woods because we haven't addressed the underlining illness that has caused him to bleed from all over his body. If he goes untreated he may be well for a while but soon enough he's going to start bleeding again.

In this case, people talking about this in this thread that say that Marijuana alone isn't going to Rescue California's economy basically is of the belief that the politicians and the laws in Cali make it so that the root causes that made this happen stay in place.

So to "save" this person that is having blood flow out of them is to not only give them a transfusion, but to close the wound, and then solve the underlining issue. If all of those things aren't done, then its setting the person up for death again...it just depends if its soon or a little later.

So what they're saying is the transfusion alone, Marijuana and Hemp alone, is not going to "Rescue" anything unless some significant changes happens at a law and governmental level...which they appear to believe won't be the case.
Click to expand...

True enough. The vampires are eagerly looking at laws that would allow them to tax marijuana for one reason only....they want more tax dollars...and they'll poke more holes in the body to make sure that blood flows out, too.
 
Slippery Slope said:
What are some of these spending programs that you think are causing all of CA problems?

I lived in CA, for about 15 years during the tech boom and it was doing fine. I was there when Gray Davis was ousted and it was still doing fine...
Click to expand...

The list of wasteful spending is long, where to start? But this begs the quesiton, do you really think there are none?
 
Truth Detector said:
The list of wasteful spending is long, where to start? But this begs the quesiton, do you really think there are none?
Click to expand...
There's plenty. That hardly means that legalizing Cannabis would not at least mend some of these wounds until a regime change occurs. No one is claiming that legalization is the panacea for every problem in CA.
 
I don't know how much of California's spending is waste. But it's a fairly simple matter to identify where the major expenditures go.

Over 40% is for education, including K-12 and higher, and about 25% is for health and human services.

expenditures.gif


It's also a fairly simple matter to understand where the revenue comes from:

california-revenues.gif


Over half of the revenue comes from income and corporate taxes. Sales and other taxes make up another large piece. Together, cigarette and alcohol taxes generate roughly 1% of the income. Not insignificant. But no doubt offset by the related expenditures for health and human services.
 
EgoffTib said:
There's plenty. That hardly means that legalizing Cannabis would not at least mend some of these wounds until a regime change occurs. No one is claiming that legalization is the panacea for every problem in CA.
Click to expand...

Legalizing will do NOTHING to stem the red ink in this state. The point being that the State is run by Liberal Democrats who find a way to spend well beyond their means REGARDLESS of the sources of revenue any more than the lottery or Indian Gaming taxes.

The lottery was once going to be the panacea to education funding; that was a lie.

Indian gaming revenues and taxes would bring in the necessary revenue to fill the gap between revenues and spending; that was a lie.

It is like alcoholism or drug addiction; you don't solve their addictions by giving them MORE; you end it with COLD turkey and stark REALITY. The citizens are done with the games the chicanery, being taxed to death and the excuses. It is time to exercise responsible control and manage within their means or find themselves kicked out of office.
 
Truth Detector said:
Legalizing will do NOTHING to stem the red ink in this state. The point being that the State is run by Liberal Democrats who find a way to spend well beyond their means REGARDLESS of the sources of revenue any more than the lottery or Indian Gaming taxes.

The lottery was once going to be the panacea to education funding; that was a lie.

Indian gaming revenues and taxes would bring in the necessary revenue to fill the gap between revenues and spending; that was a lie.

It is like alcoholism or drug addiction; you don't solve their addictions by giving them MORE; you end it with COLD turkey and stark REALITY. The citizens are done with the games the chicanery, being taxed to death and the excuses. It is time to exercise responsible control and manage within their means or find themselves kicked out of office.
Click to expand...
If you think that legalizing weed(therefore creating revenue) will do nothing to aid the economy, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
 
EgoffTib said:
If you think that legalizing weed(therefore creating revenue) will do nothing to aid the economy, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Click to expand...

What study or studies would you recommend we examine to determine the actual cost/benefit of marijuana legalization, either in California or nationwide?
 
Grateful Heart said:
What study or studies would you recommend we examine to determine the actual cost/benefit of marijuana legalization, either in California or nationwide?
Click to expand...

What studies would you recommend we examine that identify the benefits and ROI of the war on drugs? What studies would you recommend we examine that show legalizing marijuana would result in a negative impact upon California or nationwide?
 
Grateful Heart said:
What study or studies would you recommend we examine to determine the actual cost/benefit of marijuana legalization, either in California or nationwide?
Click to expand...

It is hard to collect accurate data, because of the very nature of having concrete numbers on a unregulated unknown commodity.

Here is a good attempt at a cost benefit courtesy of Jeffrey Miron, Professor of Economics at Harvard. It also carries the endorsement of 500+ other Economists:

Costs of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis

I still cannot find the data on the MPP study (pretty sure it was theirs) which is used for the AB 390 estimates of 1.3 billion in rev. for CA, and also estimates Ca's expenditures. I really should have bookmarked that.
 
Lerxst said:
What studies would you recommend we examine that identify the benefits and ROI of the war on drugs? What studies would you recommend we examine that show legalizing marijuana would result in a negative impact upon California or nationwide?
Click to expand...

I never argued that the war on drugs was cost-effective, or that marijuana would have a negative impact on CA or nationwide. So I didn't place myself in a position to have to provide any such studies.

On the other hand, EgoffTib clearly stated his opinion that legalization would aid the economy, as quoted here:

EgoffTib said:
If you think that legalizing weed(therefore creating revenue) will do nothing to aid the economy, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Click to expand...

So I'm asking him to support that assertion with some numbers, based on what the professionals who've looked at this consider reasonable.

;)
 
marduc said:
It is hard to collect accurate data, because of the very nature of having concrete numbers on a unregulated unknown commodity.

Here is a good attempt at a cost benefit courtesy of Jeffrey Miron, Professor of Economics at Harvard. It also carries the endorsement of 500+ other Economists:

Costs of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis

I still cannot find the data on the MPP study (pretty sure it was theirs) which is used for the AB 390 estimates of 1.3 billion in rev. for CA, and also estimates Ca's expenditures. I really should have bookmarked that.
Click to expand...

As I read Miron's report, California might expect to see a tax revenue of somewhere between $95M and $105M annually (2005 dollars.) Those figures are reflected in Tables 4a and 4b in your link. My assumption reading Miron's report is that marijuana would be legalized nationally, as he provides estimates on a state-by-state basis as well as for federal revenues.
 
Last edited:
those tables are under the assumption that marijuana is taxed as other goods, not taxed as alcohol or cigs.

Table 4a indicates the tax revenue that would accrue to each state and to the federal government under the assumption that each state collected revenue equal to 10%...
...This is approximately what occurs now for the economy overall
Click to expand...

both tables 4a, and 4b are numbers generated if Marijuana were taxed like all other goods. your estimates need to be multiplied by ~2.6 if taxed like alcohol and tobacco.

marijuana legalization would generate tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.
Click to expand...

Regardless this data cannot be extrapolated to reflect revenue from California's AB 390 since the tax rate is not comparable to goods, nor to alcohol or tobacco, but instead significantly higher. I don;t mind a high taxation rate, CA's seems modest to me, and even at this rate it is still easy to undercut black market prices and put them out of business due to lack of profitability, or a competitive product.

Massachusetts is a lot steeper on their proposed taxation rates, I think they are pushing it.

regardless, it is a product that can support a heavy taxation, and as with all drugs I think they should be legal, and heavily taxed so that retail prices are somewhat but not substantially below black market prices, yet with a far superior quality. The lower cost/better quality balance is the key to driving the black market (esp. foreign) out of business. As we know with both tobacco and alcohol, although relatively insignificant.. there will be a domestic black market, but one that can be managed.

edit: I forgot to mention I do not put much heed in Miron's report, as there are a lot of assumptions made as illustrated above with the goods taxation v. alc/tob taxation v. sustainable cannabis taxation. He attempts to fill in a lot of holes in the data, and makes a ton of assumptions. But it gives some numbers to work with as an estimate, and even these.. which are low-ball numbers are significant.
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
edit: I forgot to mention I do not put much heed in Miron's report, as there are a lot of assumptions made as illustrated above with the goods taxation v. alc/tob taxation v. sustainable cannabis taxation. He attempts to fill in a lot of holes in the data, and makes a ton of assumptions. But it gives some numbers to work with as an estimate, and even these.. which are low-ball numbers are significant.
Click to expand...

As I expressed to you by PM, one of my major concerns is that decriminalization/legalization should be addressed on a nationwide level. The repeal of alcohol prohibition came from the federal level. By the time Roosevelt promised repeal in 1932, 46 states already supported it, along with 75% of the population. (Link) It seems like we're doing it backwards this time around. Marijuana decriminalization is not supported by the majority of the population. And I suspect some jurisdictions would fight it vigorously. Which is why I've raised questions in previous posts about drug tourism, as well as the costs of enforcement.
 
I agree with you that it should be on a national level; however the reality is is that people in Washington will not risk what they view as political suicide to make this happen (As evidenced by Obama in his Town Hall). The only recourse to ultimately have it occur nationally is to make inroads via state legislation in places where it is favorable, and use these as experimental pilot programs.

National legalization is the way to go, but as a nation we are not ready for it.. the propaganda dies slowly for some, but the opposition is dying.. literally. Once inroads are made in a few states (there is widespread regional support in the east and the west coast) and opinions sway then we can address truly reforming the issue, and actually putting the gangs, cartels, and violence to rest for good.
 
A love that a few higher up in Washington DC all the way across the country can decide for the great people of Washington State. We have been rooting for democracy to fail since we gave DC so much control over our lives.

What makes it alright that a few men in a small city across the country can better decide for what is better in my life than I myself.
 
Grateful Heart said:
On the other hand, EgoffTib clearly stated his opinion that legalization would aid the economy, as quoted here:
So I'm asking him to support that assertion with some numbers, based on what the professionals who've looked at this consider reasonable.

;)
Click to expand...
Taxes create revenue. If you legalize it, you can tax it. This is economics 101. Studies of the effect of Marijuana on a state's economic status have not been performed due to weed being illegal. :doh
 
Truth Detector said:
The list of wasteful spending is long, where to start? But this begs the quesiton, do you really think there are none?
Click to expand...
no, that's not the question, the question was, what are some of those wasteful programs. Simply saying that the list is long and then redirecting the question looks like obfuscation.
 
Truth Detector said:
Legalizing will do NOTHING to stem the red ink in this state. The point being that the State is run by Liberal Democrats who find a way to spend well beyond their means REGARDLESS of the sources of revenue any more than the lottery or Indian Gaming taxes.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything to back up this assertion, other than your opinion? Like I said, I think the majority of CA's problems are because of the lack of revenue due to a downturn in the economy.

The lottery was once going to be the panacea to education funding; that was a lie.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't a lie and it worked like a charm.

Indian gaming revenues and taxes would bring in the necessary revenue to fill the gap between revenues and spending; that was a lie.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't a lie and it worked like a charm.

It is like alcoholism or drug addiction; you don't solve their addictions by giving them MORE; you end it with COLD turkey and stark REALITY. The citizens are done with the games the chicanery, being taxed to death and the excuses. It is time to exercise responsible control and manage within their means or find themselves kicked out of office.
Click to expand...
That's nothing but partisan bloviating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom