• 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?

Lerxst said:
I never made that case at all. I don't think it will decrease use. I think it will increase use, and I don't care about that.
Click to expand...

Oh... I thought the consensus of the pro-legalization folks was that legalization would result in decreased use. I'm fairly certain that point's been made over and over in this thread.

The difficulty I'm having here is that I seem to be surrounded by several different viewpoints... and when I respond to one poster I'm met with a rebuttal from another, who then disavows the argument of the poster to whom I originally responded.

It's no wonder this issue has made little progress in the voting booth.

:confused:
 
Grateful Heart said:
Oh... I thought the consensus of the pro-legalization folks was that legalization would result in decreased use. I'm fairly certain that point's been made over and over in this thread.

The difficulty I'm having here is that I seem to be surrounded by several different viewpoints... and when I respond to one poster I'm met with a rebuttal from another, who then disavows the argument of the poster to whom I originally responded.

It's no wonder this issue has made little progress in the voting booth.

:confused:
Click to expand...

Decreased use? I dunno. It would probably stay the same. A lot of the "forbidden fruit" factor would be removed but intellectual curiosity would probably make up for that. I can't see an increase in use, especially hard drugs like crack and heroin.
 
Grateful Heart said:
Oh... I thought the consensus of the pro-legalization folks was that legalization would result in decreased use. I'm fairly certain that point's been made over and over in this thread.

The difficulty I'm having here is that I seem to be surrounded by several different viewpoints... and when I respond to one poster I'm met with a rebuttal from another, who then disavows the argument of the poster to whom I originally responded.

It's no wonder this issue has made little progress in the voting booth.

:confused:
Click to expand...

I think those that smoke now would continue to smoke and those that are curious but were afraid of getting caught would try it. I see an increase coming. Other may disagree. That's an ancillary argument though. Who really cares if the usage increases that much?
 
Grateful Heart said:
Oh... I thought the consensus of the pro-legalization folks was that legalization would result in decreased use. I'm fairly certain that point's been made over and over in this thread.

The difficulty I'm having here is that I seem to be surrounded by several different viewpoints... and when I respond to one poster I'm met with a rebuttal from another, who then disavows the argument of the poster to whom I originally responded.

It's no wonder this issue has made little progress in the voting booth.

:confused:
Click to expand...

I think you are thinking that based upon my argument that legalizing it would lead to a decrease in accessibility and use in juveniles. ( I have scaled back my thinking on this a bit after research and debate here, although I still do not think there will be an increase.)

I did in fact come across several major government sanctioned studies that conclude that decriminalization has had no statistical net gain in users from the data. I have in no way suggested that it would lead to a decrease in usage for the population as a whole, although a lack of increase of usage in these studies among non juvenile users was a surprising find.

I am fairly certain that in fact there will be an initial increase in usage (with of age adults) with legalization at first, then it will taper off to a baseline usage level. Past studies do suggest that it would be comparable to current usage rates, however these studies are studies of decriminalization, not legalization.

My latest re-posting of one of the excerpts from these papers a page or so back, was to illustrate to you that the states that have decriminalized MJ for the most part had higher usage rates than other states to begin with. I had bolded the wrong portion for that re-post and did not realize this until after It was too late to edit, however that is one of the studies that concluded in comparison to other states, there was a slight decrease in usage in more lenient states.

Will there be a decrease in legitamate of age users?? I don't know, it would be nice, but I don't expect it, and I have not pressed that issue, my apologies if somehow you got the idea that that was a position I was taking.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
That's an ancillary argument though. Who really cares if the usage increases that much?
Click to expand...

I was about to post something along those lines, you summed it up rather succinctly for me though.
 
Grateful Heart said:
Oh... I thought the consensus of the pro-legalization folks was that legalization would result in decreased use. I'm fairly certain that point's been made over and over in this thread.
Click to expand...

Those statistics are based on the Dutch population itself. The tourism industry on the other hand provides a world wide travel destination for people within the cannabis culture.
--------------------------------------------------

Has anyone reviewed the Miron report on the savings for all levels of government with the legalization of cannabis?

Ill repost to pertain to the topic: Costs of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis

Being that this thread is about California's budget, do you believe cannabis legalization would increase the states tax revenue?
 
Last edited:
I dont see why they shouldnt legalise the worlds most boreing drug.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Those statistics are based on the Dutch population itself. The tourism industry on the other hand provides a world wide travel destination for people within the cannabis culture.
--------------------------------------------------

Has anyone reviewed the Miron report on the savings for all levels of government with the legalization of cannabis?

Ill repost to pertain to the topic: Costs of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis

Being that this thread is about California's budget, do you believe cannabis legalization would increase the states tax revenue?
Click to expand...

Yeah I have seen that before, its findings are well circulated as well, in fact I have seen it cited in a newspaper articles in the last couple of weeks since Ca announced AB 390. It is based on a lot of assumptions, but it seems to try to err on the side of caution for most of it. It is a reasonable attempt to set expectations of savings and revenue, although it is a lot of conjecture and speculation. The taxation rate even if based on alcohol/tobacco taxation is modest.

I am trying to dig up the actual research where California had attained its $1.3 billion estimate for tax revenue derived from AB 390. I can't track it down though, although I had read it a few weeks back. It detailed not only the estimated ta revenue, but also the savings for law enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration as well.

But yes, it will generate tax revenue, and I think the $1.3 billion was a fair and reasonable estimate, add onto that the amount of savings in enforcement costs (wish I could find that hard data right now) which estimates have put as high as another $1 billion, the answer is yes, it will generate a solid increase in revenue.

<sits back and waits for the "no it won't make them any revenue because the damn libruls will just spend it all" off point replies>
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
<sits back and waits for the "no it won't make them any revenue because the damn libruls will just spend it all" off point replies>
Click to expand...

That's a great point... the state lotteries were implemented to bring in billions in additional revenues to make up for deficits.

The California lottery brings in about $1.5B each year to the state. Money well spent, no doubt.

:2wave:
 
Its simple really, on a state level, they are running a deficit, how do you get out of a deficit? increase revenue. decrease spending. Others have argued this will not help rescue (some conveniently decide to omit the word help) the economy.

Whether it be the states budget, or for the overall economic woes it will help both.

State budget, increase in revenue via taxation, decrease in expenditure via enforcement costs. In a nut shell this will help, what legislators do after the fact is moot, although some have attempted to use that as an argument against.

On an overall state economic level, it will help as well. It will create more jobs and revenue within the state in a market that was previously the (illegal) providence of mexican drug cartels and underground production (Mexican cartels have been steadily increasing their position in instate marijuana cultivation in California, illegally, and with illegal labor). The production will go to licensed people who have to submit to a background check, pay a $5,000 initial fee, and $2500 annual renewal. Same fees and background checks are to be applied to retail licenses. The result is jobs and income that has been outsourced and sent directly to Mexico stays in California. These are just the cultivation and distribution aspects and not counting other potential economic bonuses such a tourism, paraphernalia sales, hemp products, ect. In a nutshell billions of dollars of revenue that was sent directly to Mexico stays in California, most assuredly a help for their floundering economy.

This is just the economic impact this could have. A pleasant side effect will be the hamstringing of gangs, and drug distribution related violence, which is epidemic. Will it go away completely? NO, but their cash cow is gone, it has been estimated the Mexican Drug Cartels attain 60 - 70% of their revenue from Marijuana alone. All of this passes through gangs throughout CA prior to eventually making its way to the cartels.

Is this the miracle cure for what ails California?? NO, although some here have been misinterpreting that as the gist of the topic. Will it HELP the economy, both for the states coffers, and for the public at large?? yes.
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
Its simple really, on a state level, they are running a deficit, how do you get out of a deficit? increase revenue. decrease spending. Others have argued this will not help rescue (some conveniently decide to omit the word help) the economy.

Whether it be the states budget, or for the overall economic woes it will help both.

State budget, increase in revenue via taxation, decrease in expenditure via enforcement costs. In a nut shell this will help, what legislators do after the fact is moot, although some have attempted to use that as an argument against.

On an overall state economic level, it will help as well. It will create more jobs and revenue within the state in a market that was previously the (illegal) providence of mexican drug cartels and underground production (Mexican cartels have been steadily increasing their position in instate marijuana cultivation in California, illegally, and with illegal labor). The production will go to licensed people who have to submit to a background check, pay a $5,000 initial fee, and $2500 annual renewal. Same fees and background checks are to be applied to retail licenses. The result is jobs and income that has been outsourced and sent directly to Mexico stays in California. These are just the cultivation and distribution aspects and not counting other potential economic bonuses such a tourism, paraphernalia sales, hemp products, ect. In a nutshell billions of dollars of revenue that was sent directly to Mexico stays in California, most assuredly a help for their floundering economy.

This is just the economic impact this could have. A pleasant side effect will be the hamstringing of gangs, and drug distribution related violence, which is epidemic. Will it go away completely? NO, but their cash cow is gone, it has been estimated the Mexican Drug Cartels attain 60 - 70% of their revenue from Marijuana alone. All of this passes through gangs throughout CA prior to eventually making its way to the cartels.

Is this the miracle cure for what ails California?? NO, although some here have been misinterpreting that as the gist of the topic. Will it HELP the economy, both for the states coffers, and for the public at large?? yes.
Click to expand...

That got me thinking. The amount of jobs lost by jail guards, and drug enforcement officers will surely be made up in farmers, producers, retailers, transportation (it has to get from one place to another), education and help groups, etc....
 
marduc said:
On an overall state economic level, it will help as well. It will create more jobs and revenue within the state in a market that was previously the (illegal) providence of mexican drug cartels and underground production (Mexican cartels have been steadily increasing their position in instate marijuana cultivation in California, illegally, and with illegal labor). The production will go to licensed people who have to submit to a background check, pay a $5,000 initial fee, and $2500 annual renewal. Same fees and background checks are to be applied to retail licenses. The result is jobs and income that has been outsourced and sent directly to Mexico stays in California. These are just the cultivation and distribution aspects and not counting other potential economic bonuses such a tourism, paraphernalia sales, hemp products, ect. In a nutshell billions of dollars of revenue that was sent directly to Mexico stays in California, most assuredly a help for their floundering economy.

This is just the economic impact this could have. A pleasant side effect will be the hamstringing of gangs, and drug distribution related violence, which is epidemic. Will it go away completely? NO, but their cash cow is gone, it has been estimated the Mexican Drug Cartels attain 60 - 70% of their revenue from Marijuana alone. All of this passes through gangs throughout CA prior to eventually making its way to the cartels.

Is this the miracle cure for what ails California?? NO, although some here have been misinterpreting that as the gist of the topic. Will it HELP the economy, both for the states coffers, and for the public at large?? yes.
Click to expand...

I'm in favor of legalization.

I think you've misjudged a few things in your post here though.

The drug cartels aren't going anywhere, and neither are the other criminal elements associated with drugs.

The cartels will merely set up legal operations and employ illegal workers.
Why would they give up their empires, when they can reduce operating costs by going legal?

The criminal element will always exist, it's called the black market. They'll ignore the tax laws and sell non taxed pot.

How many black market industries exist in America? Cigarettes, guns, booze etc...

The topic is whether it will rescue California's economy. I don't think it will.
 
Grateful Heart said:
Oh... I thought the consensus of the pro-legalization folks was that legalization would result in decreased use. I'm fairly certain that point's been made over and over in this thread.
Click to expand...

Have quotes for that? I have not got that indication at all, save for a few arguing perhaps that it will reduse the use of those under age doing it. You can't take that argument and twist it to apply to all. Please, lets see some quotes to back this up.

The difficulty I'm having here is that I seem to be surrounded by several different viewpoints... and when I respond to one poster I'm met with a rebuttal from another, who then disavows the argument of the poster to whom I originally responded.
Click to expand...

You're having difficulty because you've had a transparent, obvious, see through agenda that a blind man could spot 30 miles away from the point that you came into this thread and as such its benefits your position to act confused and having difficulties because you've not once in this entire thread had a legitimate reason for why it shouldn't be legalized, instead continually and repeatedly deflecting with things such as "Well, look at other countries laws" which is not a reason or "Well, your arguments for it aren't consistant" which isn't an argument against it.

You can't MAKE an argument against it so you attempt to use the logic that because people want it legalized for different reasons that somehow means it shouldn't be legalized which makes no logical sense at all and is a non-argument. You act confused by peoples responses because you have no ability to make one of your own so its your only defense to tread water.

Its no wonder this has gotten little traction in the voting booth because people like you who can't apply logic, can not look at this in any way besides a purely emotional and propoganda filled way, continue to try and mislead and confuse the general population about matteres.

People in this thread have given a large amount of potential reasons why it SHOULD be legalized; from economical, to constitutional, to security, and on. Give us one or two good reasons why it should be ILLEGAL, not pointing to another country going "look at how they're doing it", but actual REASONS you believe the federal government should tell people they are not allowed to grow, sell, or use marijuana.
 
GottaHurt said:
The topic is whether it will rescue California's economy. I don't think it will.
Click to expand...

The topic of the thread and the article that promted the thread is:

Can Marijuana help Rescue California's Economy?
 
Last edited:
GottaHurt said:
The drug cartels aren't going anywhere, and neither are the other criminal elements associated with drugs.
Click to expand...

Its a matter of sheer economics. Lower prices will reduce the amount of firms willing to enter/stay in the market. Open competition (where as we have closed) will work to push prices down, while improving quality and hopefully create novelties.

The cartels will merely set up legal operations and employ illegal workers.
Why would they give up their empires, when they can reduce operating costs by going legal?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe they can compete with capital investors willing to pour millions of taxed, clean money into production, transportation, retail, and most importantly R&D? If licenses are auctioned, Pablo Escobar (a murderer) will probably not be able to be present to sign for his cash paid license export.

The criminal element will always exist, it's called the black market. They'll ignore the tax laws and sell non taxed pot.
Click to expand...

The black market cannot exist when a good is available for some form of legal retail. There are black markets for guided missile systems. Why, it is a supply side issue due to the lack of entry to the legal missile system store:mrgreen: (monopsony).

How many black market industries exist in America? Cigarettes, guns, booze etc...
Click to expand...

Oh you mean fenced goods? Yes, they do exist and at even cheaper prices to the buyer. Do you know what happens when a drug dealer gets robbed by another?

The topic is whether it will rescue California's economy. I don't think it will.
Click to expand...

Long run or short run? I believe a viable tourist industry can be created on top of the golden aura of Hollywood.
 
GottaHurt said:
I'm in favor of legalization.

I think you've misjudged a few things in your post here though.

The drug cartels aren't going anywhere, and neither are the other criminal elements associated with drugs.

The cartels will merely set up legal operations and employ illegal workers.
Why would they give up their empires, when they can reduce operating costs by going legal?
Click to expand...

If it is just marijuana legalization, yes they will shift their focus to other drugs, however that is a market that has a limited demand, they are not gong to create a demand out of thin air. Will they attempt to switch to gambling and other endeavors, some undoubtedly will not want to see their empire crumble.

California alone is not going to bankrupt the cartels or make a major impact on them, however if we legalized and controlled pot nationwide that would take away their cash cow. Pot is estimated to account for 65-70% of revenues for drug cartels in Mexico and Columbia. Will it send them out of business? no. Will it drastically impact the scale at which they operate? yes.


The criminal element will always exist, it's called the black market. They'll ignore the tax laws and sell non taxed pot.

How many black market industries exist in America? Cigarettes, guns, booze etc...
Click to expand...

And how much of a market is there for moonshine compared to the market for illegal alcohol during prohibition?

How many gangs are running around shooting people in our streets with tommy guns or todays equivalent Ak-47's over Alcohol.

There will be a small black market I am sure, for pot it will be out of the hands of the cartels though. If we sell a superior quality product at lower prices there will be no impetus for them to risk costly and risky smuggling operations. A small scale domestically produced black market like we see for moonshine is the most likely result.
 
Trish Regan's marijuana special is going to be on CNBC after the Bernanke report.

Basically they are responding to our thread:mrgreen:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Trish Regan's marijuana special is going to be on CNBC after the Bernanke report.

Basically they are responding to our thread:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yes the world revolves around DP:lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I find most people I come across that smoke weed daily, are usually about weed. As if it is there life. They weed before things like career, family, safety of there children, there own personal saftety, or anything of the like.
Click to expand...
Bull****.

It no longer becomes about what ever activity they are doing, but more about how they can get high while doing whatever thing it is they are doing.
Click to expand...
More bull****.

I find people like this limited in life and I pity them.
Click to expand...
Not only bull**** but ignorant too.

I have no respect for buffoons like this. Sure there are people who use marijuana responsibly, but just like the alcoholic, the chronic weed smoker is not the type of person I would hire, trust, or consider a value to society.
Click to expand...
More ignorance. I would rather have a chronic weed smoker on my payroll than an alcoholic. You would too if you weren't clueless about the the subject. I think you've watched too many Cheech and Chong type movies.

The idiocy, that making weed available could be the sole savior of the California economy is stupid. Nothing but the rantings of a weed first buffoon.
Click to expand...
Actually... mathematically speaking, legalizing Marijuana and Hemp could probably save our country from ruin, which is the direction we are headed... ruin.

Oh and if weed is truly a medicine, it is immoral for California to tax it. Unless the whole thing is a sham.
Click to expand...
It's not just a medicine, it's also a recreational herb.

I smoke weed daily, own my own company, have friends and family and lead a productive, tax paying life. It helps me sleep. I enjoy smoking a little while reading or watching TV in the evening. Sometimes I get high on the weekends while I work in the garden... you're simply ignorant.

You called everyone who smokes weed in CA (and really worldwide) a lazy, unmotivated baffoon. It doesn't get much more ignorant than that.
 
Lerxst said:
Lol...as cool as that group sounds, realistically speaking I could never join it until I completely retired. I would be run out of a very good job and right now, I like providing for my family. I would be crucified.

Although I will tell you, I've sat through many staff meetings in which we openly discussed legalizing weed. The Drug Task Force agents were all behind, as was 2/3rds of the staff. You just don't say that **** publicly in the bible belt though. It's a good way to have the conservatives here destroy your career and even damage your personal property. They'll pull that board right out of their ass and beat you down with it when it comes to legalizing marijuana.
Click to expand...

I live in the bible belt as well and I know what you mean. It's not just weed however. I had to remove anything liberal looking from my truck because I've had it damaged (keyed, bumper sticked scratched off). I've even had the Darwin fish pried off and an Obama sticker PAINTED over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom