Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?

[Ed Anger]

You have grown soft in your old age.  >

If tobacco's legal, they sure as shit ought to make marijuana legal.

Your support for stoners has been noted.

[clandestino]

Got a new title, thanks Neil for doing it for me.

:lazypothead:

[saskganesh]

I think tobacco will become illegal in our lifetime actually.

[Martinus]

Obviously not.  1.3 billion wouldn't close the hole.

Moreover, every single person who supports drug legalization is subhuman scum, and it angers me to see them advance their cause.

The Economist supports it. So do I.

Same goes for gay marriage.

YUO = OUTDATED

[Barrister]

It makes me laugh that they're trying to use the budget crisis as a wedge to legalize pot.

It would take years for a legal mechanism to develop for the growing and distribution of legal pot.  And the "cost savings" are all in fixed costs like officer's salaries, and can not easily be reduced.

Maybe legal pot would be a huge industry for California in 2012.  But it's not doing a damn thing in 2009.

[Admiral Yi]

It makes me laugh that they're trying to use the budget crisis as a wedge to legalize pot.

It would take years for a legal mechanism to develop for the growing and distribution of legal pot.  And the "cost savings" are all in fixed costs like officer's salaries, and can not easily be reduced.

Maybe legal pot would be a huge industry for California in 2012.  But it's not doing a damn thing in 2009.

There's already a legal medical ganga market in Cal.

Leaving that aside, why do you need to develop a legal mechanism for the cultivation and distribution of a legal commodity?  Is there a legal mechanism for the cultivation and distribution of tomatoes?

[jimmy olsen]

It makes me laugh that they're trying to use the budget crisis as a wedge to legalize pot.

It would take years for a legal mechanism to develop for the growing and distribution of legal pot.  And the "cost savings" are all in fixed costs like officer's salaries, and can not easily be reduced.

Maybe legal pot would be a huge industry for California in 2012.  But it's not doing a damn thing in 2009.

Wouldn't the biggest savings come from not having to arrest and incarcerate people for using and producing marijuana? 

[Neil]

Obviously not.  1.3 billion wouldn't close the hole.

Moreover, every single person who supports drug legalization is subhuman scum, and it angers me to see them advance their cause.

The Economist supports it. So do I.

Same goes for gay marriage.

YUO = OUTDATED

I think we all know that you're subhuman.  You're nothing more than a walking, talking infection vector for the AIDS virus.  The Economist is also crap.

I am as I have always been:  The way of the future.

[Barrister]

It makes me laugh that they're trying to use the budget crisis as a wedge to legalize pot.

It would take years for a legal mechanism to develop for the growing and distribution of legal pot.  And the "cost savings" are all in fixed costs like officer's salaries, and can not easily be reduced.

Maybe legal pot would be a huge industry for California in 2012.  But it's not doing a damn thing in 2009.

There's already a legal medical ganga market in Cal.

Leaving that aside, why do you need to develop a legal mechanism for the cultivation and distribution of a legal commodity?  Is there a legal mechanism for the cultivation and distribution of tomatoes?

Wrong emphasis of the words.  Not a legal mechanism in terms of a mechanism in the law, but rather a mechanism that happens to be legal. 

You need legal growers for starters.  I don't know California at all so I don't know how much pot is imported, but since federal law still applies to transporting across state lines all pot would have to be grown in California.  The large majority of which is grown indoors.  You have zoning requirements, business license requirements, etc which would pretty much prohibit indoor grow-ops.  Now farmers could start to grow the stuff outside but that all takes time, plus investments in equipment.

Then you have to handle distribution.  I doubt 7-11 is going to immediately open up a marijuana aisle, just due to the potential backlash in other parts of the country. 
A few existing head shops would probably start selling the stuff immediately, but that won't be a huge business right off the bat.  Again a distribution system would grow up, but not in 2009.

You also have tax to worry about.  A whole bunch of street-level dealers aren't going to suddenly go legit - they'd have to keep records, and pay taxes!

[Barrister]

Wouldn't the biggest savings come from not having to arrest and incarcerate people for using and producing marijuana?

It's all fixed costs.  You're paying that cop whether he's investigating marijuana, or doing traffic stops.  You're paying for that jail whether it holds 1100 prisoners or 1000.

[garbon]

It's all fixed costs.  You're paying that cop whether he's investigating marijuana, or doing traffic stops.  You're paying for that jail whether it holds 1100 prisoners or 1000.

You probably wouldn't need as many cops.  You likely wouldn't need as many jails.  You certainly wouldn't need to buy as much food/clothing/soap etc if you have fewer prisoners.

[clandestino]

Why don't you just see how the Dutchies have done it before?

[Barrister]

It's all fixed costs.  You're paying that cop whether he's investigating marijuana, or doing traffic stops.  You're paying for that jail whether it holds 1100 prisoners or 1000.

You probably wouldn't need as many cops.  You likely wouldn't need as many jails.  You certainly wouldn't need to buy as much food/clothing/soap etc if you have fewer prisoners.

Again my principle point was that these kinds of factors won't help in 2009.

Maybe, over time you'd discover you need fewer cops and fewer jails.  But only time would tell.  And firing civil servants and closing jails tends to be a very lengthy and costly process.  Like I said - maybe in 2012 it would make a difference (although I think the real timeframe would be much longer).  And trust me when I say the incedental costs of food and clothing for prisoners are miniscule.

And that's if you assume that the legallizing of pot won't have unintended consequences on other forms of crime.  Sure, less charges for cultivation, but will it lead to more charges of driving while stoned?

[garbon]

Well presumably California will still be a state by 2012...and we will probably still have budget problems, unless we take steps now.

[Barrister]

Well presumably California will still be a state by 2012...and we will probably still have budget problems, unless we take steps now.

But the original post suggests that legalization is a solution now.  When it clearly isn't.