What say our resident Californian's?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090313/us_time/08599188495600
QuoteCan Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy
By ALISON STATEMAN / LOS ANGELES Alison Stateman / Los Angeles – Fri Mar 13, 7:10 pm ET
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."
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.
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."
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."
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.
I don't think California wants to be labelled the Hippie State.
Quote from: The Brain on March 17, 2009, 03:18:12 PM
I don't think California wants to be labelled the Hippie State.
:D Nice
gambling is another one of those societal ills, but its legal in many places. some of the cash raised goes towards treatment, education, enforcement etc.
you also have large savings in law enforcement.
if its legalised, within a few years most people, even most nontokers, will accept it as a normal state of being.
Quote from: saskganesh on March 17, 2009, 03:36:09 PM
if its legalised, within a few years most people, even most nontokers, will accept it as a normal state of being.
Never.
Guess where Ammiano is from.
Mendocino?
I think they should go ahead and legalize marijuana.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 17, 2009, 03:56:59 PM
I think they should go ahead and legalize marijuana.
You have grown soft in your old age. >:(
Quote from: saskganesh on March 17, 2009, 03:47:55 PM
Mendocino?
Good guess, but nah, not our weed capital. He's from SF. I think I voted for him when I voted for the gay slate. :(
Quote from: fahdiz on March 17, 2009, 03:56:59 PM
I think they should go ahead and legalize marijuana.
America will not be deceived by the machinations of unnaturally animated skeletons.
Quote from: Cindy Brady on March 17, 2009, 03:58:25 PM
You have grown soft in your old age. >:(
If tobacco's legal, they sure as shit ought to make marijuana legal.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 17, 2009, 04:01:47 PM
Quote from: Cindy Brady on March 17, 2009, 03:58:25 PM
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.
Got a new title, thanks Neil for doing it for me.
:lazypothead:
I think tobacco will become illegal in our lifetime actually.
Quote from: Neil on March 17, 2009, 02:31:26 PM
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
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.
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 06:03:35 PM
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?
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 06:03:35 PM
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?
Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2009, 04:47:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 17, 2009, 02:31:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2009, 06:12:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 06:03:35 PM
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!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2009, 06:14:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 06:23:13 PM
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.
:yeahright:
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.
Why don't you just see how the Dutchies have done it before?
Quote from: garbon on March 17, 2009, 06:31:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 06:23:13 PM
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.
:yeahright:
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?
Well presumably California will still be a state by 2012...and we will probably still have budget problems, unless we take steps now.
Quote from: garbon on March 17, 2009, 06:43:50 PM
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.
Quote from: clandestino on March 17, 2009, 06:33:51 PM
Why don't you just see how the Dutchies have done it before?
Because Europe generally fails at pretty much everything it tries.
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 06:45:39 PM
But the original post suggests that legalization is a solution now. When it clearly isn't.
It doesn't actually say when they expect those profits to come in.
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 06:38:54 PM
Sure, less charges for cultivation, but will it lead to more charges of driving while stoned?
Driving while impaired doesn't generate prison terms. Night in the tank, fine, suspended sentance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2009, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 06:38:54 PM
Sure, less charges for cultivation, but will it lead to more charges of driving while stoned?
Driving while impaired doesn't generate prison terms. Night in the tank, fine, suspended sentance.
They put drunk/stoned drivers in tanks? Genuis!
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2009, 04:22:17 AM
They put drunk/stoned drivers in tanks? Genuis!
The drunk tank lacks treads and weapons, so it isn't as dangerous as you might think from the name.
Update to this topic. Interesting part in bold.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_taxes
Quote
SAN FRANCISCO – A bill to tax and regulate marijuana in California like alcohol would generate nearly $1.4 billion in revenue for the cash-strapped state, according to an official analysis released Wednesday by tax officials.
The State Board of Equalization report estimates marijuana retail sales would bring $990 million from a $50-per-ounce fee and $392 million in sales taxes.
The bill introduced by San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano in February would allow adults 21 and older to legally possess, grow and sell marijuana.
Ammiano has promoted the bill as a way to help bridge the state's $26.3 billion budget shortfall.
"It defies reason to propose closing parks and eliminating vital services for the poor while this potential revenue is available," Ammiano said in a statement.
The way the bill is written, the state could not begin collecting taxes until the federal government legalizes marijuana. A spokesman says Ammiano plans to amend the bill to remove that provision.
The legislation requires all revenue generated by the $50-per-ounce fee to be used for drug education and rehabilitation programs. The state's 9 percent sales tax would be applied to retail sales, while the fee would likely be charged at the wholesale level and built into the retail price.
The Equalization Board used law enforcement and academic studies to calculate that about 16 million ounces — or 500 tons — of marijuana are consumed in California each year.
Marijuana use would likely increase by about 30 percent once the law took effect because legalization would lead to falling prices, the board said.
Estimates of marijuana use, cultivation and sales are notoriously difficult to come by because of the drug's status as a black-market substance. Calculations by marijuana advocates and law enforcement officials often differ widely.
"That's one reason why we look at multiple reports from multiple sources — so that no one agenda is considered to be the deciding or determining data," said board spokeswoman Anita Gore.
Advocates and opponents do agree that California is by far the country's top pot-producing state. Last year law enforcement agencies in California seized nearly 5.3 million plants.
If passed, Ammiano's bill could increase the tension between the state and the U.S. government over marijuana, which is banned outright under federal law. The two sides have clashed often since state voters passed a ballot measure in 1996 legalizing marijuana for medical use.
At the same time, some medical marijuana dispensary operators in the state have said they are less fearful of federal raids since U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department would defer to state marijuana regulations.
Advocates pounced on the analysis as ammunition for their claim that the ban on marijuana is obsolete.
"We can't borrow or slash our way out of this deficit," said Stephen Gutwillig, California state director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "The legislature must consider innovative sources of new revenue, and marijuana should be at the top of that list."
Ammiano's bill is still in committee. Hearings on the legislation are expected this fall.
Also Wednesday, three Los Angeles City Council members proposed taxing medical marijuana to help close the city's budget gap.
Council members Janice Hahn, Dennis Zine and Bill Rosendahl backed a motion asking city finance officials to explore taxing the drug.
Hahn said that with more than 400 dispensaries operating in the city, the tax could generate significant revenue. The motion pointed out that a proposed tax increase on medical marijuana in Oakland, which has only four dispensaries, was projected to bring in more than $300,000 in 2010.
Meanwhile, marijuana supporters have taken the first official step toward putting the legalization question directly to California voters.
A trio of Northern California criminal defense attorneys on Wednesday submitted a pot legalization measure to the state attorney general's office, which must provide an official summary before supporters can begin gathering signatures.
About 443,000 signatures are necessary to place The Tax, Regulate and Control Cannabis Act on the November 2010 ballot. The measure would repeal all state and local laws that criminalize marijuana.
Who knew that when I voted for Ammiano last fall, he'd waste his time on this? :o
Yet another reason why ballot initiatives are terrible.
Besides, I'm sure the feds could somehow steal jurisdiction and have all drug users executed. At least I'd hope so.
this is all rather silly. All the AG has said is that the feds will not be in the business of raiding medical dispensaries that are acting consistently with state medical marijuana laws absent evidence that they are fronts for traffickers. There is nothing to suggest that the Feds will stop enforcing federal drug laws outside of this limited concept. Any attempt by California to legalize will not change the fact that the manufacture, distribution and sale of pot will remain illegal under federal law.
I was President of Kailifornia, I could adapt existing cannabis legislation and regulations and have a functioning regulatory framework within six months, with significant revenue flowing in from annual licenses and user taxes almost immediately.
so if you want to give me this mandate, which comes with a host of unprecedented, unconstitutional powers, you know where to find me.
Quote from: saskganesh on March 17, 2009, 03:36:09 PM
gambling is another one of those societal ills, but its legal in many places. some of the cash raised goes towards treatment, education, enforcement etc.
you also have large savings in law enforcement.
if its legalised, within a few years most people, even most nontokers, will accept it as a normal state of being.
:lmfao:
Yeah, we have such large savings in law enforcement from the legalization of alcohol. And one cannot forget to argue how the legalization of tobacco and alcohol has little or no impact on the medical costs.
And, I agree, nontokers will soon accept it as a normal state of being. Just as much as they currently accept tobacco smokers, and how much they embrace homeless drunks.
Awesome if so. If it did manage to pass others would likely soon follow suite and thus the world as a whole will steadily be improved just that little bit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2009, 03:26:17 PM
Driving while impaired doesn't generate prison terms. Night in the tank, fine, suspended sentance.
:huh:
It does in NY and NC for repeated offenders. If you get a 2nd DWI within 10 years in NY it can be prosecuted as a Felony, and if you get a 4th DWI in 10 years in NC you can be charged with Habitual DWI and get a minimum of a year in prison (they are trying to change the law so if you get three DWI's lifetime they can charge you with Habitual).
Quote from: Strix on July 16, 2009, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2009, 03:26:17 PM
Driving while impaired doesn't generate prison terms. Night in the tank, fine, suspended sentance.
:huh:
It does in NY and NC for repeated offenders. If you get a 2nd DWI within 10 years in NY it can be prosecuted as a Felony, and if you get a 4th DWI in 10 years in NC you can be charged with Habitual DWI and get a minimum of a year in prison (they are trying to change the law so if you get three DWI's lifetime they can charge you with Habitual).
My dad's friend, who lives in Wisconsin, spent some short time in jail for his second DUI. He says he got the message after that.
Quote from: Strix on July 16, 2009, 01:25:01 PM
And, I agree, nontokers will soon accept it as a normal state of being. Just as much as they currently accept tobacco smokers, and how much they embrace homeless drunks.
:yes:
Homeless drunks are the only type of people who drink.
BTW, here in SF, pretty much everyone is friendly to those who smoke weed.
Quote from: garbon on July 16, 2009, 01:35:58 PM
:yes:
Homeless drunks are the only type of people who drink.
BTW, here in SF, pretty much everyone is friendly to those who smoke weed.
How much do they embrace tobacco smoke? At the very least, if it's legalized than perhaps they can make it smell better when it burns.
Quote from: Strix on July 16, 2009, 01:39:52 PM
How much do they embrace tobacco smoke? At the very least, if it's legalized than perhaps they can make it smell better when it burns.
Cigarette smokers are generally frowned upon, while marijuana smokers are taken as a part of everyday life. :)
Hopefully the anti-smoking lobby and the legalization lobby will wipe each other out.
Quote from: Strix on July 16, 2009, 01:25:01 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on March 17, 2009, 03:36:09 PM
gambling is another one of those societal ills, but its legal in many places. some of the cash raised goes towards treatment, education, enforcement etc.
you also have large savings in law enforcement.
if its legalised, within a few years most people, even most nontokers, will accept it as a normal state of being.
:lmfao:
Yeah, we have such large savings in law enforcement from the legalization of alcohol. And one cannot forget to argue how the legalization of tobacco and alcohol has little or no impact on the medical costs.
And, I agree, nontokers will soon accept it as a normal state of being. Just as much as they currently accept tobacco smokers, and how much they embrace homeless drunks.
the tax revenue from alcohol sales is very handsome. as to cost savings, the FBI can now do other things besides raiding boozecans/bars.
why criminalise normal behavior? are you afraid of becoming unemployed?
why do you insist that ever person whose behavior you do not possibly agree with is equivalent to a homeless drunk?
you are a living example of why law enforcement personel should not dictate the legal system.
Quote from: saskganesh
the tax revenue from alcohol sales is very handsome. as to cost savings, the FBI can now do other things besides raiding boozecans/bars.
The problem is that California legalizing marijuana doesn't change or affect Federal Law. The FBI will still be raiding except now those caught will face the Draconian drug laws that the Feds use instead of being dropped into local courts.
Quote from: saskganesh
why criminalise normal behavior? are you afraid of becoming unemployed?
Because not all normal behavior is healthy for an individual and/or society. And, no, legalizing marijuana will have no effect on my employment status. There is a lot of crime associated with drugs that legalizing marijuana will not change.
Quote from: saskganesh
why do you insist that ever person whose behavior you do not possibly agree with is equivalent to a homeless drunk?
When did I insist this? I was implying that there will be an increase of homeless people who have succumb to overindulging in marijuana just as there are those who have done so with alcohol. It just means more people trying to bum money for alcohol, tobacco, AND marijuana.
Quote from: saskganesh
you are a living example of why law enforcement personel should not dictate the legal system.
Those without law enforcement backgrounds are doing such an excellent job why would anyone want to replace them? :lmfao:
There is a reason that Republicans get elected when crime starts to get out of control.
EDIT: And the cost savings and increased revenue will be outweighed by increase costs to health care and other associated items created by a larger base of users.
Quote from: Strix on July 16, 2009, 02:55:15 PM
I was implying that there will be an increase of homeless people who have succumb to overindulging in marijuana just as there are those who have done so with alcohol.
:huh: I've never heard of a marijuana habit rendering someone homeless.
Quote from: Caliga on July 16, 2009, 03:11:04 PM
Quote from: Strix on July 16, 2009, 02:55:15 PM
I was implying that there will be an increase of homeless people who have succumb to overindulging in marijuana just as there are those who have done so with alcohol.
:huh: I've never heard of a marijuana habit rendering someone homeless.
Than you probably haven't lived in a big city filled with Dazzling Urbanites before.
Well, I grew up outside of Philadelphia... I didn't spend a ton of time in the city but I never heard of any marijuana-addicted homeless there. I did live in the city of Boston from 1994 to 2001, and didn't hear of or see any there either. My impression is that most homeless with drug problems were alcoholics.
Quote from: Caliga on July 16, 2009, 03:24:16 PM
Well, I grew up outside of Philadelphia... I didn't spend a ton of time in the city but I never heard of any marijuana-addicted homeless there. I did live in the city of Boston from 1994 to 2001, and didn't hear of or see any there either. My impression is that most homeless with drug problems were alcoholics.
It might be different in other places but the county I live in has a tough policy on DHS (formerly DSS aka welfare) clients. In order to receive Medicaid, Food Stamps, and a check they must get a substance abuse evaluation. If they have a drug problem (marijuana, alcohol, or what not) than they must get treatment. Failure to obtain an evaluation, treatment, and/or failure to comply with treatment (being absent, etc) results in a DHS sanction of X number of days. Also failure to report to DHS as directed, reply to letters, and any other number of things results in DHS sanction.
You can guess how well young Dazzling Urbanites fair in this system. The results are a lot of people sanctioned for marijuana use that are evicted to friends, family, shelters, or the streets. You can also guess how receptive family and friends are to hosting someone who robs them blind for drug money.
The result is an increasing number of homeless people in the Rochester area because of marijuana. And this is before it's legalized. Once it becomes legal than all bets are off as to the eventual number of homeless and displaced people.
All that says is that laws/regulations create the link of marijuana to homelessness. That has little or nothing to do with marijuana addiction or abuse (in the actual sense of the word, not just use).
Quote from: garbon on July 16, 2009, 03:39:53 PM
All that says is that laws/regulations create the link of marijuana to homelessness. That has little or nothing to do with marijuana addiction or abuse (in the actual sense of the word, not just use).
We are discussing laws/regulations and not addiction or abuse. Legalizing marijuana will ultimately create a larger population that uses it. A larger base population of users creates the potential for more users that become addicted and/or abuse the drug. As is the case with alcohol and tobacco.
The real issue will be in the private sector and not the public one. How will the private sector deal with employees using marijuana on a regular basis especially those that drug test now, and will it be legal for a business to discriminate on the basis of marijuana use?