Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

Ethereal · Jul 16, 2009

scourge99 said:
the romantic ideal of the atomic family as the pinnacle of society has always been mythical. Not to say that the atomic family is not an optimal solution but the benefits from it are not exclusive to it. That is, the atomic family is not a required social structure to achieve communal and family integrity.

I made no mention of the atomic family.

yet these flickering screens introduce people to knowledge and information previously unimaginable in the bubble we once lived.

Such as?

and the paper and radio media is the same way if not worse before the TV.

Really? So, what was the radio equivalent of today's Real World?

The. Overwleming amount of information allows us to better cross examine the information given to us. Instead of taking someones word for it our youth can Google for answers and determine truth themselves. However, one must learn how to learn correctly or be overwelmed by false information.

I never said having access to voluminous amounts of information was inherently bad, obviously the mass media has its benefits. What I'm concerned with is the voluminous amounts of nonsense and crap that comes with it and the inability or unwillingness of parents to shield their children from it.

I see fictional TV no different than I see fictional books. Both are usually wastes of time. But all work and no play makes jack a dull boy, afterall. Moderation is key.

Yes, and absent a strong familial and communal structure moderation is an impossibility, hence the social fixation on things which are giant wastes of time and mental energy.

Moreover, watching a TV show is not comparable to reading a book.

You think that ignorance and stupidty was less prevalent before the information age?

Not necessarily, but I will say that mental weakness was not as prevalent amongst past generations. I look at these kids and I think about them in WWII and I just laugh...

The problem has never been the books, the radio, TV, internet or drugs. These are merely scapegoats for failures of the parents and guardians.

Well, cripes buddy, that's what I've been trying to say.

Kandahar · Jul 16, 2009

apdst said:
It'll never cease to amaze me how Libbos staunchly oppose cigarettes, but are all for legalized pot.

There aren't very many liberals out there who want to outlaw cigarettes. And there are plenty of conservatives who favor legalizing pot too.

Marijuana legalization is one of those issues that seems to be reaching a "tipping point," where Americans of all political ideologies are beginning to realize how retarded the ban is.

TheNextEra · Jul 16, 2009

Kandahar said:
There aren't very many liberals out there who want to outlaw cigarettes. And there are plenty of conservatives who favor legalizing pot too.

Marijuana legalization is one of those issues that seems to be reaching a "tipping point," where Americans of all political ideologies are beginning to realize how retarded the ban is.

The problem is that that a bunch of rich conservatives in Boulder Colorado got a smoking ban passed and they think that Colorado is liberal because it was passed in a college town, but it was passed by the residents not by the students whom many are not residents.

Jerry · Jul 17, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So, what you're saying is that fine, a company can currently fire a man for coming in to work drunk, but they can't fire him if drugs are legalized and he comes to work on PCP?

That's one way to completely ignore what I was saying, yeah.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Also....by golly damn, drugs are illegal now....but there are still people on the shop floors, including a helicopter factory I know, who've been busted by surprise drug tests and fired. So the effort to keep those evil chemicals out of the workforce has failed.

I have no idea why you hold a puritan view on anything, let alone this of all topics. By your logic we should legalize all manner of crime since some token minority of people are going to brake the law regardless.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Please keep that salient and inescapable fact in mind: The War on Drugs was never winnable, was lost, and we're still spending billions and billions of dollars restricting the freedoms of EVERYONE as a result of this failure.

Probably why I never supported the war on drugs.

What's your point? Oh, you think I disagree that the war on drugs has failed? You think I support the "war on drugs" because I oppose legalizing hard drugs?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Lost freedoms include:

Loss of the presumption of innocence.

Inability to carry larges amounts of cash out of the country, or even around the country.

Civil forfeiture laws incentivize law enforcement agencies to bend the rules and break other laws, and have resulted in the murder of innocent citizens.

Vehicle inspections at the borders.

Citizens stopped for routine traffic violations may be held on the spot until a trained dog sniffs their vehicle, in the complete absence of any probable cause.

etc etc etc

You can thank that token criminal element for that.

Jerry · Jul 17, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No more so than anyone's alcohol use.

Your ignoring critical facts again, but let those stand in your way.

Jerry · Jul 17, 2009

JustinDeeMan said:
Do you really need proof? Can you not just open your eyes and see what is going on?

Yes damnit we need ****ing proof!! That's why your on this ****ing forum: to debate. SO DO IT! Where's your evidence? What data have you already reviewed which lead you to this position? Links and quotes!

apdst · Jul 17, 2009

TheNextEra said:
See this is where you look stupid, many conservatives also agree with the whole cigarette ban not that it is right.

Source, please?

But then don't let the stereotypes of liberals be against you, much like the stereotypes of conservatives being right-wing nutjobs only concerned with cramming religion down other people's throats all the while wanting government to control people's morality be against those that think it.

Which party is that is always pushing smoking legislation?

After you answer that question let's see some links where Republicans have passed legislation cramming religion down people's throats. Thank you, sir.

Jerry · Jul 17, 2009

Kandahar said:
Even for dangerous drugs like meth, I don't think criminalization is the way to go. They could still be legal...but in controlled, clinical environments.

WTF is that bull****? We're talking about recreational use. On your property, at your home, on your time, whenever you damn well feel like it. No one goes to any ****ing retarded "clinical environment" to have a drink, no one goes to Kandahar's stupid "clinical environment" for a smoke, and no one's talking about hanging out in a sterile 2-toned pastel tiled "clinical environment" to get high.

"Clinical environments" are for abortions and out-patient rehab, not to enjoy the night life.

Ethereal · Jul 17, 2009

:rofl

Will somebody please note that Jerry's pissed?

Jerry · Jul 17, 2009

TheNextEra said:
DUIs happen each and every year. Deaths due to alcohol related incidents happen each year. Your loved one could be killed by a drunk driver.

Are you in support of prohibition of alcohol just because alcohol may affect you? Just curious at where you stand on this.

You're mixing 2 arguments.

1: Yes, public alcohol consumption is my ****ing business because I'm a member of the public. It does directly affect me so the argument that it does not has no merit.

2: I support alcoholic, tobacco and pot for legal public consumption.

Just because I assert that something does affect me and is therefore my business does not mean I want it banned.

Jerry · Jul 17, 2009

Ethereal said:
:rofl

Will somebody please note that Jerry's pissed?

Do it your ****ing self.

/finger

Kandahar · Jul 17, 2009

Jerry said:
WTF is that bull****? We're talking about recreational use. On your property, at your home, on your time, whenever you damn well feel like it. No one goes to any ****ing retarded "clinical environment" to have a drink, no one goes to Kandahar's stupid "clinical environment" for a smoke, and no one's talking about hanging out in a sterile 2-toned pastel tiled "clinical environment" to get high.

"Clinical environments" are for abortions and out-patient rehab, not to enjoy the night life.

I'm trying to figure out where I said that the clinical environment would be for alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana...

Hmm...Nope, I'm pretty sure I didn't. I'm pretty sure I said it would be a good idea for meth, instead of an outright ban.

Liz Peeps · Jul 17, 2009

Meth is used in medicine today, it's a prescription and you don't need to take it under supervision. Works pretty well too, I might add.

Jerry · Jul 17, 2009

Kandahar said:
I'm trying to figure out where I said that the clinical environment would be for alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana...

Hmm...Nope, I'm pretty sure I didn't. I'm pretty sure I said it would be a good idea for meth, instead of an outright ban.

OK you want to play stupid? Go ahead. You joined a thread about pot, not hard drugs, and when someone said they did not want pot legalized because it would lead to hard drugs becoming legal in the same way pot would be legal, you started defending hard drugs.

Since no one is talking about using pot on in "clinical settings", no one is talking about legalizing meth in "clinical settings" either.

This thread is about pot. The only way this thread is about hard drugs is if you think legalizing pot means also legalizing hard drugs, which a bull**** slippery slope you have yet to even try to prove.

Jerry · Jul 17, 2009

...and for that matter, I don't support legalizing pot so taxes can be paid on it, either.

I support legalizing pot so I can get high.

tlmorg02 · Jul 17, 2009

Jerry said:
...and for that matter, I don't support legalizing pot so taxes can be paid on it, either.

I support legalizing pot so I can get high.

Wow, you guys are getting way too angry for a pot thread. You should all be mellow and cool. Jerry smoke a J and relax....man!

Councilman · Jul 17, 2009

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.

scourge99 · Jul 17, 2009

Councilman said:
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.

This happens all the time. Pot would be no different. However, like most laws you can break them but if you get caught you get ****ed. For most businesses and the average citizen its better to pay the taxes then to live life in fear of an audit or under the burden of tax evasion penalties. So in conclusion, yes some distributors will evade paying taxes but most won't. The consequences aren't worth it.

earthworm · Jul 17, 2009

tlmorg02 said:
Huh? Why will those follow?

Cocaine and heron could well follow...I do not know if this is male-bovine-feces or a proven fact.....We must study other nations, and their efforts to curtain drug use..
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.

tlmorg02 · Jul 17, 2009

earthworm said:
Cocaine and heron could well follow...I do not know if this is male-bovine-feces or a proven fact.....We must study other nations, and their efforts to curtain drug use..
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.

What do you mean by "a better people"?

Baralis · Jul 17, 2009

stekim said:
Sweet. I'm glad they are talking about it. The problem is, a large percentage of those "freedom loving", "small government", "state's rights", conservatives will be against it.

I am quite conservative and would be all for legalizing it. Im not a personal user but I believe things like this should be left to the individual.

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 $$.

Binary_Digit · Jul 17, 2009

Jerry said:
You joined a thread about pot, not hard drugs, and when someone said they did not want pot legalized because it would lead to hard drugs becoming legal in the same way pot would be legal, you started defending hard drugs.

That's because the prohibition of hard drugs is equally as unjustified as the prohibition of marijuana or alcohol. Prohibition mis-characterizes drug use and addiction as a criminal problem, when in reality it's a medical problem. Prohibition turns the war on drugs into a war on drug users.

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.

http://www.mapinc.org/lib/limited.pdf

(American Journal of Public Health)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."[/FONT][/FONT]

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).

http://www.icjia.state.il.us/GoTo20...N OF MARIJUANA AND THE DEMAND FOR ALCOHOL.doc

(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 [3], 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.

http://dassa.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/MONOGRAPH6.pdf

(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.

http://www.aodgp.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/332B63EE0E0E0C39CA25703700041DAC/$File/mono37.pdf

(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)

earthworm · Jul 17, 2009

Ethereal said:
:rofl

Will somebody please note that Jerry's pissed?

Often is the time that I do not blame him...

Agnapostate · Jul 17, 2009

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?

Captain America · Jul 17, 2009

Erod said:
Thirty years ago, you would have laughed if someone told you one day two gay guys could get married, a guy could do what OJ did and get away with it, and marijuana would be legal.

Legalizing pot opens a Pandora's box.

One day we'll be debating legalizing polygamy and marrying farm animals. And we'll be debating legalizing recreational narcotic use altogether.

It all started when they allowed women to vote and blacks to ride at the front of the bus. See what they started? Pandora's box for sure. :roll:

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.

Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

Ethereal

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

TheNextEra

Jerry

Jerry

Jerry

apdst

Jerry

Ethereal

Jerry

Jerry

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Liz Peeps

Jerry

Jerry

tlmorg02

Councilman

scourge99

earthworm

tlmorg02

Baralis

Binary_Digit

earthworm

Agnapostate

Captain America

Jedi Master