Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

I just saw a Visa commercial with Smashing Pumpkins music announced by Morgan Freeman.

Has the whole world sold out?

I need some drugs. Badly.

Freakzilla wrote:I just saw a Visa commercial with Smashing Pumpkins music announced by Morgan Freeman.

Has the whole world sold out?

I need some drugs. Badly.

I just saw that and thought the same thing.

Freakzilla wrote: It was really just to get the topic going, a Dune forum without a Drug Topic is like a chick with no tits.

Keep Keira oot of this!!!!!!!!!

Rob

are we talking about pot? ... this is a joke .....

hmmmm

Robspierre wrote:

Freakzilla wrote: It was really just to get the topic going, a Dune forum without a Drug Topic is like a chick with no tits.

Keep Keira oot of this!!!!!!!!!

Rob

She's at least go little ones.

Potheads have been answering this question for decades:

Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?



By ALISON STATEMAN / LOS ANGELES

Could marijuana be the answer to the economic misery facing California? Democratic State Assembly member Tom Ammiano thinks so. Ammiano introduced legislation last month that would legalize pot and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale - a move that could mean billions for the cash-strapped state. Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion in annual sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity - milk and cream - which brings in $7.3 billion annually, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state's tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion in much-needed revenue a year, offsetting some of the billions in service cuts and spending reductions outlined in the recently approved state budget.


"The state of California is in a very, very precipitous economic plight. It's in the toilet," says Ammiano. "It looks very, very bleak, with layoffs and foreclosures and schools closing or trying to operate four days a week. We have one of the highest rates of unemployment we've ever had. With any revenue ideas people say you have to think outside of the box, you have to be creative, and I feel that the issue of the decriminalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana fits that bill. It's not new, the idea has been around, and the political will may in fact be there to make something happen." (See pictures of stoner cinema.)


Ammiano may be right. A few days after he introduced the bill, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that states should be able to make their own rules on medical marijuana and that federal raids on pot dispensaries in California would cease. The move signaled a softening of the hard-line approach previous administrations have had to medicinal pot use. The nomination of Gil Kerlikowske as the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy may also signal a softer federal line on marijuana. If he is confirmed as the so-called Drug Czar, Kerlikowske will bring with him experience as police chief of Seattle, where he made it clear that going after people for posessing marijuana was not a priority of his force. (See a story about the grass-roots marijuana war in California.)


California was one of the first states in the nation to legalize medical marijuana in 1996. Currently, $200 million in medical marijuana sales are subject to sales tax. If passed, the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390) would give California control of pot in a manner similar to alcohol, while prohibiting its purchase to citizens under age 21. (The bill has been referred to the California State Assembly's Public Safety and Health Committees; Ammiano says it could take up to a year before it comes to a vote for passage.) State revenues would be derived from a $50 per ounce levy on retail sales of marijuana and sales taxes. By adopting the law, California could become a model for other states. As Ammiano put it: "How California goes, the country goes."


Despite the projected and much-needed revenue, opponents say legalizing pot will only add to social woes. "The last thing we need is yet another mind-altering substance to be legalized," says John Lovell, lobbyist for the California Peace Officers' Association. "We have enough problems with alcohol and abuse of pharmaceutical products: do we really need to add yet another mind-altering substance to the array?" Lovell says the easy availability of the drug will lead to a surge in its use, much like what happened when alcohol was allowed to be sold in venues other than liquor stores in some states.


Joel W. Hay, professor of Pharmaceutical Economics at USC, also foresees harm if the bill passes. "Marijuana is a drug that clouds people's judgment. It affects their ability to concentrate and react and it certainly has impacts on third parties," says Hay, who has written on the societal costs of drug abuse. "It's one more drug that will add to the toll on society. All we have to do is look at the two legalized drugs, tobacco and alcohol, and look at the carnage that they've caused. [Marijuana] is a dangerous drug and it causes bad outcomes for both the people who use it and for the people who are in their way at work or other activities." He adds: "There are probably some responsible people who can handle marijuana but there are lots of people who can't, and it has an enormous negative impact on them, their family and loved ones." (See pictures of Mexico's drug wars.)


In response, retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray, a longtime proponent of legalization, estimates that legalizing pot and thus ceasing to arrest, prosecute and imprison non-violent offenders could save the state an additional $1 billion a year. "We couldn't make this drug any more available if we tried," he says. "Not only do we have those problems, along with glamorizing it by making it illegal, but we also have the crime and corruption that go along with it." He adds, "Unfortunately, every society in the history of mankind has had some form of mind-altering, sometimes addictive substances to use, to misuse, abuse or get addicted to. Get used to it. They're here to stay. So, let's try to reduce those harms and right now we couldn't do it worse if we tried."

Honey, pack your bags and put the kids in the car.

We're goin' back to Cali!

Huh. I don't think so.

$14 billion, huh? Does that figure come from adding up all the busts that the DEA makes that have those wildly-inflated, astronomical "street values" attached to them? I'll bet it does.

IF y'all can get Obama to legalize federally, I'll vote for him.

Omphalos wrote:Huh. I don't think so.

$14 billion, huh? Does that figure come from adding up all the busts that the DEA makes that have those wildly-inflated, astronomical "street values" attached to them? I'll bet it does.

Probably. However I think it would be worth it just to stop locking up non-violent people.

As a long time pot smoker, I firmly believe that the majority of the "problems" caused by it are due to it's illegal nature. If it wasn't for that it would never have caused me any problems.

That judge is right, people are going to smoke it anyway, might as well collect some tax revenue.

It makes perfect sense, which is why it won't happen.

GamePlayer wrote:It makes perfect sense, which is why it won't happen.

I think you underestimate the greed of polititians. There's a lot of money to be made here.

Even so, I don't see it working. The Federals would have none of it. The moment they hear "legalizing drugs" they will pop a jugular at the possible outcry from the voters. If California tried to push it through without Washington's consent, could you imagine the fallout? Washington would have no choice but to distance themselves from California as would the various political parties from their state parties. Federal funding would dry up faster than a California front lawn and anything gained by taxes on marijuana would be offset by the loss of federal dollars to the state. Don't think it can work, but maybe they have something up their sleeves this time around.

Legally this is an issue under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. The federal law trumps state laws, but only to the extent that the federal law appliles. In this case its pretty clear that federal law outlaws what Ca may try to legalize. I believe that it is an issue for which the Supreme Court has something called "Original Jurisdiction," which means that the case does not necessarially have to percolate up through the District Courts and Appellate levels first: IOW, it could be filed in the USSC first, and, would go through the process much more quickly than usual.

At least I think there is original jurisdiction for disputes between the feds and the states. I know that there is for disputes among the states, at any rate.

The do have almost a decade of legal, medicinal marijuana to cite as an example.

"Incomplete suppression of trade in any commodity always increases the profits
of the tradesmen, especially the profits of the senior distributors." His voice
was warningly hesitant. "That is the fallacy of thinking you can control
unwanted narcotics by stopping them at your borders."
~CH:D

Hard to stop a narcotic that grows wild in all 50 states... and in closets, basements, etc...

Freakzilla wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:It makes perfect sense, which is why it won't happen.

I think you underestimate the greed of polititians. There's a lot of money to be made here.

It'll probably have to happen up here first and work out okay for a while before it'll get passed in the US, sadly. I think the whole war on drugs is pretty deeply rooted in your country isn't it?

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that 90% of the opposition to legalizing pot in Canada comes from the gov being worried about the US gov having a shit-fit if we do.

Baraka - what's the Conservative take on this issue? Keeping it illigal mostly because of worry over the US flipping out if we legalize it, or does it have more to do with our own conservative population's opinions? I know your fed party is still working to shut down that wonderful safeinjection site in Vancouver, so they seem to be pretty dead-set against any progressive drug legislation.

Omphalos wrote:Legally this is an issue under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. The federal law trumps state laws, but only to the extent that the federal law appliles. In this case its pretty clear that federal law outlaws what Ca may try to legalize. I believe that it is an issue for which the Supreme Court has something called "Original Jurisdiction," which means that the case does not necessarially have to percolate up through the District Courts and Appellate levels first: IOW, it could be filed in the USSC first, and, would go through the process much more quickly than usual.

At least I think there is original jurisdiction for disputes between the feds and the states. I know that there is for disputes among the states, at any rate.

In Denver, adults 21 and older may possess up to an ounce of marijuana without penalty in the city. However, it is still illegal under state law.

I'd like to emphasize again, there is a difference between the concepts of "legalization" and "decriminalization".

A state could take away the penalties without actually legalizing it.

Freakzilla wrote:

Omphalos wrote:Legally this is an issue under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. The federal law trumps state laws, but only to the extent that the federal law appliles. In this case its pretty clear that federal law outlaws what Ca may try to legalize. I believe that it is an issue for which the Supreme Court has something called "Original Jurisdiction," which means that the case does not necessarially have to percolate up through the District Courts and Appellate levels first: IOW, it could be filed in the USSC first, and, would go through the process much more quickly than usual.

At least I think there is original jurisdiction for disputes between the feds and the states. I know that there is for disputes among the states, at any rate.

In Denver, adults 21 and older may possess up to an ounce of marijuana without penalty in the city. However, it is still illegal under state law.

I'd like to emphasize again, there is a difference between the concepts of "legalization" and "decriminalization".

A state could take away the penalties without actually legalizing it.

CA would have to legalize it to tax it though.

Couple of weeks back they busted a huge growing operation just across from where I work.

But the national news that evening had a piece on how imported drugs fund international terrorism. They're idiots - homegrown is the way forward.

Lewis Black had my answer on The Daily Show sometime this week -
he said pot is now strong, cheap and easily obtained.

the government will make it weaker, more expensive and you'll have to
get it from a grumpy old doctor. fuck that.

SandRider wrote:Lewis Black had my answer on The Daily Show sometime this week -
he said pot is now strong, cheap and easily obtained.

the government will make it weaker, more expensive and you'll have to
get it from a grumpy old doctor. fuck that.

From what I've heard, medicinal marijuana is very potent. I understand that they engineer it so that you can never get shitty weed, as is sometimes the case when buying from dealers.

And I'm pretty sure that once pot is legal, it will be as available as cigarettes. It would be ridiculous not to retail it thusly.

The retail price would certainly be ridiculously high, but the good news is that the dealers can probably continue to sell at street-price, and the customers wouldn't have to be concerned about possession laws. Plus, the dealers would probably suffer a relatively mild penalty for the sale of Marijuana without a license if they were ever caught.

Drunken Idaho wrote:

SandRider wrote:Lewis Black had my answer on The Daily Show sometime this week -
he said pot is now strong, cheap and easily obtained.

the government will make it weaker, more expensive and you'll have to
get it from a grumpy old doctor. fuck that.

From what I've heard, medicinal marijuana is very potent. I understand that they engineer it so that you can never get shitty weed, as is sometimes the case when buying from dealers.

And I'm pretty sure that once pot is legal, it will be as available as cigarettes. It would be ridiculous not to retail it thusly.

The retail price would certainly be ridiculously high, but the good news is that the dealers can probably continue to sell at street-price, and the customers wouldn't have to be concerned about possession laws. Plus, the dealers would probably suffer a relatively mild penalty for the sale of Marijuana without a license if they were ever caught.

Minors will still want to get it from street dealers, so they would never be totally pushed out of the market. However, their profits would go way down since it would be a lot safer going to a doctor.

If I had a choice, I'd get it from a doctor.

This is very decent mid-grade, it's $300 and ounce.
This is geneticaly engineered by the US government, it's $2,000.
Is this what we smoked last night?
This is all I ever smoke.

The main health concern atm seems to be the new GM super strains - the effect they have could be much worse/different to the stuff they had back in the day.

Given this unknown it seems fair enough that the high strength stuff is illegal (for at least as long as it takes to do some research... volunteers? ). But at the same time they should legalise the stuff they had in the 60s. That stuff is tried and tested.

A legal source of low/mid grade would go a long way to keeping the majority of casual smokers off the really potent stuff.

Not sure if I ever really expressed my views about legalizing Satan's Candies( ), but I'd rather it was all legal.
Like alcohol, tobacco etc, if you really want to mess yourself up, go for it, pay for it, then pay for it. Just don't cry afterwards for help and take the tax payers' money.

DuneFishUK wrote:The main health concern atm seems to be the new GM super strains - the effect they have could be much worse/different to the stuff they had back in the day.

Given this unknown it seems fair enough that the high strength stuff is illegal (for at least as long as it takes to do some research... volunteers? ). But at the same time they should legalise the stuff they had in the 60s. That stuff is tried and tested.

A legal source of low/mid grade would go a long way to keeping the majority of casual smokers off the really potent stuff.

Mid-grade would be fine with me, I don't ever buy the "kind" anyway. I like the act of smoking nearly as much as the effects so if I have the good stuff I smoke too much, get the munchies and pass out. That's all that's going to happen to anyone, no matter how strong the pot is, unless they're unstable anyway.

No one has ever overdosed on marijuana.