Judge: It's 'high time' to legalize pot

jallman · Apr 28, 2009

Voidwar said:
And how much Tax Revenue are they generating ?

It's not currently being taxed but with the current market base, the estimate is somewhere around 1 billion last I read. Currently, it's a bit hazy because it is being treated as a medicinal substance and so taxation is different as opposed to alcohol or tobacco taxes.

Aren't there local suppliers under federal investigation as we type ?

Well no ****, sherlock. It's illegal federally so any supplier would naturally be under federal investigation.

jallman · Apr 28, 2009

Goldenboy219 said:
Somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million annually in the state of California:2wave:.

To a point. Regardless, there are still over 400 dispensaries paying taxes.

source

Just imagine if they could tax it like alcohol or cigarettes. And open up to a larger market base.

Not to mention the savings in not funding marijuana suppression through the criminal justice system.

Councilman · Apr 28, 2009

If legalized who says the government or guys in lab coats would be the growers or in charge? Legalized pot can be grown at home and it's really not rocket science. I have over the years known a number of amateurs and a couple of big time growers and they both had equal or very similar THC levels as measured by many regular users whom I also knew at the time. The limit on amounts will be regulated because of taxes like it is with alcohol.
An article in Omni Magazine many years ago told of a study comparing the effects of beer Vs pot in college students. The conclusion was funny. It said if after consumption the goal was to clear a high jump bar set very low the beer drinker was physically unable to complete the task. Where as the pot smoker was perfectly capable of clearing the bar but kept forgetting what the task was. It was written as a joke but they explained it was their was of showing the contrast in the effects. I know because of the way it was written is why I remember it 30 some years later. :rofl

Goobieman · Apr 28, 2009

Binary_Digit said:
Nobody said that's not the case. The argument was that those policies are unconstitutional, not that they don't exist. That's why I said "should."

Thatls the point -- the arent unconstitutional, as established by the SCotUS.

If you turn the water off it's not regulation, it's prohibition.

Prohibition is obviously part of regulation.

Furthermore, the interstate commerce clause doesn't give Congress control over production (the faucet),

The faucet doesnt produce the water.

it gives Congress regulatory control over the sale of commodities (water from the faucet) across state lines.

The ICC covers anything that affects commerce. This includes production.

Binary_Digit · Apr 28, 2009

Goobieman said:
Thatls the point -- the arent unconstitutional, as established by the SCotUS.

SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, and their interpretations have binding consequences, but the simple fact they ruled X doesn't automatically mean X is Constitutional. SCOTUS has made unconstitutional rulings in the past. (Dredd Scott, Roe v. Wade, etc.)

Goobieman said:
Prohibition is obviously part of regulation.

Maybe in the same sense that death is part of life. But when you're dead you aren't living anymore, and when you prohibit you aren't regulating anymore. How can you regulate something that you prohibit out of existence? That doesn't make sense. Regulate means you allow it with some restrictions. Prohibit means you don't allow it under any circumstances. They aren't the same thing at all.

Goobieman said:
The faucet doesnt produce the water.

That's true, but it's also irrelevant. Unless the faucet is used for commerce across state lines, either directly or indirectly, the ICC does not apply to it and thus the Fed should have no authority to turn it off or even regulate it.

Goobieman said:
The ICC covers anything that affects commerce. This includes production.

No. The ICC covers anything that affects interstate commerce. Do you acknowledge the difference between interstate and intrastate?

Goobieman · Apr 28, 2009

Binary_Digit said:
SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, and their interpretations have binding consequences, but the simple fact they ruled X doesn't automatically mean X is Constitutional. SCOTUS has made unconstitutional rulings in the past. (Dredd Scott, Roe v. Wade, etc.)

And... if and when they overturn the currently held rulings regarding the commerce clause, you'll have something.
Until then, you cannot aruge that any of that is unconstitutional.

Maybe in the same sense that death is part of life.

No.... in the sense that having the power to regulate a spigot includes the power to turn the spigot off (and on).

No. The ICC covers anything that affects interstate commerce. Do you acknowledge the difference between interstate and intrastate?

We've been over this - the ICC --also-- covers any and all intrastate commerce that affects interstate commerce.

Binary_Digit · Apr 28, 2009

Goobieman said:
And... if and when they overturn the currently held rulings regarding the commerce clause, you'll have something.
Until then, you cannot aruge that any of that is unconstitutional.

Why not? Roe v. Wade was a SCOTUS decision and yet people say all the time that it's unconstitutional, and with good reason IMO.

Goobieman said:
No.... in the sense that having the power to regulate a spigot includes the power to turn the spigot off (and on).

We've been over this - the ICC --also-- covers any and all intrastate commerce that affects interstate commerce.

I realize what the SCOTUS has ruled in the past, and I disagree with it. I believe they have made erroneous assumptions to give the Fed authority over the States it was not intended to have. Especially as it pertains to prohibiting things that don't even involve commerce, like cultivation entirely for private use.

If the Fed had the inherent Constitutional authority to altogether prohibit substances under the ICC, then the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 would have been unnecessary. They could have just prohibited the drug, but instead they had to manipulate the law by requiring a licence to posssess it, and then never issuing any licences. By some bass-ackwards logic, it was assumed that if you possess marijuana, you must have obtained it through some sort of commerce. Which completely falls on its face if somebody grew it themselves for their own personal use and not for selling.

Goobieman · Apr 28, 2009

Binary_Digit said:
.
I realize what the SCOTUS has ruled in the past, and I disagree with it.

You;re free to diagree.
But "Constitutional/Unconstitutional" is a determination made by the SCotUS, and so if you're going to disagree with the court using those terms, you're wrong.

jallman · Apr 28, 2009

Goobieman said:
You;re free to diagree.
But "Constitutional/Unconstitutional" is a determination made by the SCotUS, and so if you're going to disagree with the court using those terms, you're wrong.

Awesome. I have this one bookmarked for the next time someone says RvW is unconstitutional.

Goobieman · Apr 28, 2009

jallman said:
Awesome. I have this one bookmarked for the next time someone says RvW is unconstitutional.

IIRC, the general argument is that RvW is a bad decision based on X Y and Z.
Thats different than arguring that the ban on banning abortion is unconstitutional.

Voidwar · Apr 28, 2009

Binary_Digit said:
You were saying?

So you can't separate product from packaging like a normal human ?

Do you you eat the styrofoam carton and the eggs doofus ?

Binary_Digit said:
When I said marijuana should be sold by an "authorized" source, I was drawing a parallel to liquor licences. Do you disagree with the requirements for businesses to have a licence before they can sell alcohol?

Your "authorization" doesn't mean anything to me.

I call I'm the official "Authorizor" next round. :roll:

Yes I do disagree with the very existance of extortionist state liquor boards.

Voidwar · Apr 28, 2009

Goldenboy219 said:
Somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million annually in the state of California:2wave:.

Source for this ? Does that sound like much ?

I read your article, and that is a SALES tax.

Not a sin tax, and thus not a revenue generator.

Lets say one in six Californians smoke grass.

36 million / 6 = 6 million people.

100 million annual, divided by 6 million = 16.60 dollars a year from a pot smoker. Yeah, you will make or break a state with California's budget on that loose change . . .

Binary_Digit · Apr 28, 2009

Voidwar said:
So you can't separate product from packaging like a normal human ?

Do you you eat the styrofoam carton and the eggs doofus ?

Are you serious? Would you honestly eat a hamburger that's been floating in gasoline for days or weeks, wrapped in celophane by some loser who doesn't even have a GED?? Give me a break.

Wessexman · Apr 28, 2009

jallman said:
Awesome. I have this one bookmarked for the next time someone says RvW is unconstitutional.

I was gonna say. Here's a conservative now appealing not to a strict and originalist interpretation of the constitution but a quite loose one.

Basically the real question is; Does the constitution grant the powers directly to ban make these substances illegal? If it doesn't then this is no better than judicial activism to make GM legal.

Ethereal · Apr 28, 2009

If one strictly interprets the Constitution no such authority exists. Citing the commerce clause is wrong on two counts.

1. The authority to regulate commerce does not entail the authority to wholly prohibit commerce. Such a reading could conceivably rationalize the prohibition of anything deemed commercial.

2. It violates the spirit of our Constitution and the letter of the Ninth Amendment. Ingesting drugs is a personal choice which - in and of itself - affects nobody but myself; therefore it should concern nobody but myself.

Nobody has the moral authority to impose their value system on others.

WI Crippler · Apr 28, 2009

Ethereal said:
If one strictly interprets the Constitution no such authority exists. Citing the commerce clause is wrong on two counts.

1. The authority to regulate commerce does not entail the authority to wholly prohibit commerce. Such a reading could conceivably rationalize the prohibition of anything deemed commercial.

2. It violates the spirit of our Constitution and the letter of the Ninth Amendment. Ingesting drugs is a personal choice which - in and of itself - affects nobody but myself; therefore it should concern nobody but myself.

Nobody has the moral authority to impose their value system on others.

....Except Chuck Norris

Kushinator · Apr 28, 2009

:roll:

Voidwar said:
Source for this ? Does that sound like much ?

I read your article, and that is a SALES tax.

Not a sin tax, and thus not a revenue generator.

What are you talking about? Please define "revenue." Specifically, tax revenue.

Lets say one in six Californians smoke grass.

36 million / 6 = 6 million people.

100 million annual, divided by 6 million = 16.60 dollars a year from a pot smoker. Yeah, you will make or break a state with California's budget on that loose change . . .

Wow.... Just wow:roll:

Judge: It's 'high time' to legalize pot

jallman

jallman

Councilman

Goobieman

Binary_Digit

Goobieman

Binary_Digit

Goobieman

jallman

Goobieman

Voidwar

Voidwar

Binary_Digit

Wessexman

Dorset Patriot

Ethereal

WI Crippler

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time