What do you guys think of AB 390 in California? Legalization and taxation of marijuana like alcohol. More info can be found at NORML, http://www.canorml.org/news/ammianobill.html
Well its about time. Pot will be smoked regardless of whether it is legal or not. Making it legal would provide more revenue for the state during the difficult economic times.
Well, this would be tremendous. I can't say the chances of it passing are overwhelming, though. $800 in taxes would raise the local price 25-33%. I don't see how they expect to lower the price by adding such a tax. Indoor growers will benefit more than outdoor, since the price is higher to begin with. Of course, medical gardens still won't have to pay, if I'm reading this right. The notion that consumption would increase by 40% is ridiculous. Comparisons between SF and Amsterdam show remarkably similar statistics. But there is a likelihood of a large, legal pot tourism industry. That is, local smokers won't be increasing in numbers or use, but more smokers will visit California to enjoy the mild legal climate. My worry is that leaving California will become a hassle.
Well a lot of the current price is risk. If its legal, a flood of new suppliers will enter the market - driving prices down to near cost (many smokers will grow personal + extra to benefit from economies of scale and a constant supply of fresh green.) Low quality bud will probably be forced out of the market completely, good stuff can be grown outdoors too but it requires regular attention. Today's cheap stuff is mostly left to grow on its own to minimize risk of being followed to the crop.
Risk is built into the cost, sure, but growing quality cannabis has built-in costs that have nothing to do with risk: To wit...approximately $600 worth of nutrients per pound OD Lights and as much as $1000 nutrients indoors Real estate Human labor to water, maintain, manicure, and dry. Not to mention losses due to mold, pests, theft. All will still be risks. LE is actually the least of the problems a California grower faces in this regard. The profit on an OD pound is already $1000 or less, ID is not much better. That $800 means that the state would be getting that money. So any way you cut it, the legal weed will cost more than the underground. I have a feeling that established growers are not going to like this. Some, who treat it as a cash crop and don't even smoke it, would be downright livid.
Bills like this, and the recently passed bill on same sex marriage, are the reason why America's economy is going downward. USA has lost its glory.
I'm all for this bill, legalization of weed alone would save the state millions on pointless prison sentences. As for the tax, I think people'd be willing to pay 50 more an oz if it was legal. That all said if it did get passed without a doubt the DEA would try to mess with users even though tat's be unconstitutional.
It really doesn't matter what law California passes. The Controlled Substance Act places Marijuana into a Schedule I substance, signifying no accepted medical use for it. It outlaws the manufacture, possession, use, or distribution of it, as it is considered a controlled substance under the act. California had an issue with Dr.'s prescribing Marijuana to people for medicinal purposes. A lot of Dr.'s got rounded up by the DEA for distribution. California is opening themselves up to it by doing this. In order to make MJ legal they are going to need to get the Controlled Substance Act amended to not include MJ. Keep in mind, I have extensive knowledge of this subjec since I used to investigate federal drug felony's for a living. But, I completely agree with legalizing it, it's effects are just like alcohol, so there really is no reason to have one legal and the other not. Kingjacob, where is it unconstitutional for the DEA to mess with users?
President Obama has indicated that Federal resources ought not be used to circumvent state laws, so the DEA should be curtailing activities in California regarding legal cannabis, medical or otherwise, during this administration. This view is supported by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. We shall see.
I think it's believed that the new drug czar will respect state laws on marijuana. I think I read that somewhere. We'll see.
I really hope so. I prefer states rights over the big brother federal government. It really surprises me that Obama has these views. I've read the same thing. The DEA has to listen to him if he says don't go there. Technically it doesn't violate the constitution though. But, if states start legalizing it they probably will have to do it at 21 like alcohol. Otherwise it's going to end up being like when the fed. gvt. wanted alcohol to go up to 21. They withheld highway funding. Which, is not something California can afford right now.
Yes it does. To wit: We can all agree that the only articles in the US Constitution regulating manufacture, distribution, or possession of any substance are the 18th (Prohibition) and the 21st Amendments (repealing it). This is evidenced by failure under constitutional test to approve previous Congressional acts controlling alcohol, hence the necessity of Constitutional amendment. The Federal Government has never had the right to override state legislation in that specific state, unless the Constitution expressly gives that power. All Federal activity in contravention of legally enacted state laws is unconstitutional, unless that power is specifically designated. Always has been. Just waiting for the Court to recognize it.
It may be unconstitutional, but, that won't stop the feds from doing stupid crap like they did with alcohol, i.e. with holding funding. Which California could use some money right about now, considering their handing out IOU's for tax returns. you know what the sad thing is? I can't believe I didn't remember exactly what that amendmant says, considering the fact I'm a constitutional law scholar lol. I've taken enough classes on it. I got out of taking history for college because of all the constitutional law classes I took lol. sorry about that, I completely had a brain fart. However, the FDA has decided there is no acceptable medical use for MJ, and since the politicians don't like it, it's illegal under the CSA. That's goin to take a Supreme Court ruling. which is a conservative majority right now, and will probably not rule in favor of it.
Not enough old bastards have internet to make for a good discussion C'mon ya old bastards, runnin' out of 401k too fast to get a computer?
The tax is gonna be so high, people are gonna buy pot from dealers not the government. If we legalize pot why dont we legalize online gambling?
Only reason why they banned online gambling because most of those online gambling sites were overseas and they cannot track or tax that income unless the person actually reported it.
It's going to be like tobacco tax, you know? The government wants to get people to stop. So they raise taxes. Then they see that doesn't work, so they figure they might as well make some money since the people are going to be doing it anyway. All this tax on goods is horrible. I honestly hate it. It's just the government trying to intervene WAY too much.