Everyone who favors legalization but has reservations over the ridiculously high fee as they are calling the tax needs to keep in mind that if the weed you buy that comes in some sort of container that shows the fee was payed, you need only pay the fee once and keep the container for all future use. Unless they plan to test every stash to see if it's from and approved supplier who will know the difference. But don't spread this idea around too much it might just queer the whole deal. Besides the idiots in Sacramento don't realize that once it's legal the revenues in the amounts they are predicting are going to go up in smoke. Pun intended. After all it's not really about getting higher tax revenues anyway it's about getting high anyway you can, I think.
If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!
Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.
The point is , the efforts to prevent drug use all have failed.. But if we regress to a total and very expensive police state...then, its either milk or die...
Idiots are bound and determined to use these dangerous drugs, and I see no stopping them.
Legalizing marijuana makes sense, this I support...
We need a better people.
The problem that I have is the reason CA is even considering legalizing it, taxes. Why are things like this rarely ever considered unless the government can find a way to use it to their advantage? They are not looking out for individuals choice as they should be all they see is $$.
The main objective of the war on drugs is to keep drug use to a minimum, but prohibition isn't doing anything toward that end. Drug laws only serve to dictate where drugs are used, not whether they are used. No country or state that has decriminalized drugs ever experienced an increase in drug use as a result. Belgium decriminalized all drugs including meth, heroine, and crack several years ago, and still the rate of use did not increase like prohibitionists predicted and today they have a much lower rate of use than in the U.S. Dozens of official government and medical reports all conclude the same thing: there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use.* That means, contrary to the assumptions that most prohibitionists make, prohibition is not keeping a lid on drug use. Removing the penalties would not cause drug use to skyrocket out of control like they predict.
The way to fight the war on drugs is through education and deglamorization, not incarceration. As one example, tobacco use in the U.S. has steadily declined over the last 30 years, and nobody had to be thrown in jail to accomplish that. We should learn from that experience and apply it toward dealing with all of our drug problems.
Decriminalization is said to increase availability, encourage use, and provide disincentives to quit. Thus, we expected longer careers and fewer quitters in Amsterdam, but our findings did not support these expectations. (snip) With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found
strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.
(American Journal of Public Health)In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."
Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base
(National Academy of Sciences - Institute of Medicine)Generally, decriminalization is not found to significantly impact drug use. An implication is that the demand for drugs is highly inelastic with respect to incremental changes in the legal sanctions for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
There is no strong evidence that decriminalization effects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana and cocaine).
(Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority)The available evidence indicates that the "decriminalization" of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use. Although rates of marijuana use increased in those U.S. states which reduced maximum penalties for possession to a fine, the prevalence of use increased at similar or higher rates in those states which retained more severe penalties. There were also no discernable impacts on the health care systems. On the other hand, the so-called "decriminalization" measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system.
The impact of marijuana decriminalization: an upda...[J Public Health Policy. 1989] - PubMed Result
(National Center for Biotechnology Information)The preponderance of the evidence gathered and examined for this study points to the conclusion that decriminalization had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people in this age group. The degree of disapproval young people hold for marijuana use, the extent to which they believe such use is harmful, and the degree to which they perceive the drug to be available to them were also unaffected by the law change.
NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(National Criminal Justice Reference Service)Several lines of evidence on the deterrent effects of marijuana laws , and on decriminalization experiences in the United States, the Netherlands, and Australia suggest that eliminating (or significantly reducing) criminal penalties for first-time possession of small quantities of marijuana has either no effect or a very small effect on the prevalence of marijuana use.
Major publications from the RAND Drug Policy Research Center's
(University of California, Berkely)The available evidence indicates that depenalisation of the possession of small quantities of cannabis does not increase cannabis prevalence. The Dutch experience suggests that commercial promotion and sales may significantly increase cannabis prevalence.
Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes (and follow-up comments)
(The British Journal of Psychiatry)Fear of apprehension, fear of being imprisoned, the cost of cannabis or the difficulty in obtaining cannabis do not appear to exert a strong influence on decisions about cannabis consumption, at least amongst the vast majority of 18-29 year olds. Those factors may limit cannabis use among frequent cannabis users but there is no evidence, as yet, to support this conjecture.
Lawlink NSW: B58 - Does prohibition deter cannabis use?
(Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Germany)The available data indicate that these decriminalisation measures had little or no impact on rates of use.
(Drug and Alcohol Services Council, South Australia)There is no evidence to date that the CEN system in South Australia has increased levels of regular cannabis use, or rates of experimentation among young adults.
(National Drug Strategy Household Surveys, South Austrailia)In Australia the evidence is accumulating -- from public attitude surveys coming down on the side of liberalising cannabis laws, from criminal justice system data indicating a vast, expensive and relatively punitive net being cast over youthful cannabis users, and from evidence that liberalisation does not increase cannabis use -- that the total prohibition approach is costly, ineffective as a general deterrent, and does not fit with the National Drug Strategy's goal of harm minimisation.
Australian Institute of Criminology - Error
(Austrailian Institute of Criminology)Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in nation level rates of illegal drug use.
PLoS Medicine: Toward a Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys
(Public Library of Science, World Health Organization)
I used to be a firm proponent of the "legalize and tax" perspective, but as I learned more about market failure and the costs of negative externalities, my support receded somewhat. Now I'm somewhat uncertain, but still cautiously support legalization efforts. I don't pay enough attention to the legal code to immediately know the answer to this question, but will there be any issue with a federal prohibition superseding state law per the Supremacy Clause, as there currently is with medicinal marijuana?
Seriously Erod, I hear ya. But ain't nobody buying that "Reefer Madness" excuse anymore (with the exception of the usual suspects but their numbers are becoming more and more insignificant. In 10 years folks of that persuasion will be all but non-existant, I predict.)
Adapt and improvise. That's all we can do. Change is and has always been inevitable.
Legalization, (once you get through all the smoke and mirrors,) is a win-win proposition. It's a change we can use.
Last edited by Captain America; 07-17-09 at 01:21 PM.
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.