http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/12/BA191BH4AR.DTL
QuoteCalifornia lawmakers on Tuesday endorsed an overhaul of the state's marijuana laws by pushing forward a bill to legalize adult recreational use and taxation of the drug.
The 4-3 vote by the Assembly Public Safety Committee was the first in the nation by a legislative body supporting recreational use of the drug. But several of the lawmakers who voted for the plan said they did so only to extend debate.
"I do not support marijuana. I don't use it, I don't want my kids to use it, I don't want anyone's kids to use it," said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, who voted in favor. But he said he supported the plan because he wants "a more rationale approach to ... a failed criminalization policy."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger supported extending the discussion, though he added that he supports current laws.
"(The Legislature) will come up with a good decision, I'm absolutely convinced of that," the Republican governor said.
The bill may die a procedural death, however, as it is up against a Friday legislative deadline to move out of the health committee, which has no meetings scheduled before the end of the week. The bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said he would reintroduce the plan if that happened.
"This is a significant vote today because it legitimizes the quest for debate, the quest for discussion," Ammiano said. "There was a time when the 'm' word never would have been brought up in Sacramento."Under existing California law, only medical use of the drug is allowed. Recreational use is not permitted and users, sellers and growers risk jail time, prison time and/or fines.
AB390 would allow possession, sale and cultivation of marijuana for people over 21, and impose a $50-an-ounce sales tax, much like taxes on tobacco and alcohol. The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control would be tasked with regulation.
The vote in Sacramento comes as state lawmakers in New Jersey on Monday made that state one of the few on the East Coast to approve medicinal marijuana use. Up north in Olympia, the Washington State Legislature will consider two bills today to remove state criminal penalties associated with marijuana.
In California, law enforcement officials from across California attended the Tuesday hearing to oppose the measure, while drug policy reform advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union spoke in favor.
San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer, who is acting president of the California Police Chiefs Association, said she was "disappointed" by the committee's action and said she believes the state's approach for handling marijuana has been effective in keeping young people from using it.
"I think we need to have the full dialogue in debunking the myths," she said, predicting the social costs would outweigh any tax gains.
State officials have estimated taxing and regulating marijuana could bring anywhere from a few hundred million dollars up to $1.4 billion annually, though one person who testified against the measure called that "blood money."
Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills (San Bernardino County), the vice-chairman of the committee, voted against the proposal and said it had not fully been vetted.
"This issue needs to be discussed more, but this bill is not the vehicle to do that," Hagman said.
Drug policy reform advocates called the vote a watershed moment for marijuana laws.
"This is an historic vote that marks the formal beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition in the United States," said Stephen Gutwillig, California state director of the Drug Policy Alliance.
Ammiano won the support of the other Democrats on the committee, who are all from the Bay Area. Voting yes were Ammiano, Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, Huffman and Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley. Voting no were Furutani, Assemblyman Danny Gilmore, R-Hanford (Kings County) and Hagman.
:homestar:
Quoteshe believes the state's approach for handling marijuana has been effective in keeping young people from using it.
:lol:
Anyway, great news.
50 clams an ounce tax? Yikes.
About fucking time.
Like gay marriage, it will fail at the poll booths.
A lot of gays were too scatter-brained and a lot of potheads will be too stoned to properly understand the relevant prop question (e.g. "Are you against abolishing the proposal allowing for anti-marijuana ban?")
Quote from: Martinus on January 13, 2010, 03:00:29 AM
Like gay marriage, it will fail at the poll booths.
A lot of gays were too scatter-brained and a lot of potheads will be too stoned to properly understand the relevant prop question (e.g. "Are you against abolishing the proposal allowing for anti-marijuana ban?")
The state legislature can adopt laws on its own.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2010, 02:40:05 AM
50 clams an ounce tax? Yikes.
The tax probably needs to be high to have a chance at passing.
Quote from: garbon on January 13, 2010, 03:19:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 13, 2010, 03:00:29 AM
Like gay marriage, it will fail at the poll booths.
A lot of gays were too scatter-brained and a lot of potheads will be too stoned to properly understand the relevant prop question (e.g. "Are you against abolishing the proposal allowing for anti-marijuana ban?")
The state legislature can adopt laws on its own.
But then it will be vetoed by Arnold or repealed by a referendum worded in a way for potheads to mix it up.
Quote from: Martinus on January 13, 2010, 03:33:21 AM
But then it will be vetoed by Arnold or repealed by a referendum worded in a way for potheads to mix it up.
I'd suggest less anal sex. :o
Quote from: Martinus on January 13, 2010, 03:00:29 AM
A lot of gays were too scatter-brained and a lot of potheads will be too stoned to properly understand the relevant prop question (e.g. "Are you against abolishing the proposal allowing for anti-marijuana ban?")
You, sir, hate gays and thus deserve to die a slow and painful death.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2010, 02:40:05 AM
50 clams an ounce tax? Yikes.
Yeah. The result will be most marijuana sales will continue to be black market. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on January 13, 2010, 05:58:50 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2010, 02:40:05 AM
50 clams an ounce tax? Yikes.
Yeah. The result will be most marijuana sales will continue to be black market. :cool:
An ounze is a lot of weed. I remember it being $50 for an 1/8th back in college, so it's not that much. I think the convenience of being able to go to 7-11 to pick up a pack of joints will mean the big companies will capture most of the market. Once Phillip Morris starts huge weed plantations it will be dirt cheap, the $50 tax won't be that much.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 13, 2010, 06:15:20 AM
An ounze is a lot of weed. I remember it being $50 for an 1/8th back in college, so it's not that much. I think the convenience of being able to go to 7-11 to pick up a pack of joints will mean the big companies will capture most of the market. Once Phillip Morris starts huge weed plantations it will be dirt cheap, the $50 tax won't be that much.
:yes:
Given the numerous federal laws about marijuana, this wouldn't change much.
Legalizing it does little except add a few tax dollars and driving down the cost of it. Oh and INCREASE the involvement and costs to law enforcement.
People will grow there own which will mean very little of the expected tax money will be realized. If it stays illegal for people to grow on their own than the black market will still continue to function just selling it cheaper. It will drive down the prices either way.
It will interesting to see if it does pass if a 1920's Bootlegger-type rush will occur.
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 02:33:39 PM
Legalizing it does little except add a few tax dollars and driving down the cost of it. Oh and INCREASE the involvement and costs to law enforcement.
People will grow there own which will mean very little of the expected tax money will be realized. If it stays illegal for people to grow on their own than the black market will still continue to function just selling it cheaper. It will drive down the prices either way.
It will interesting to see if it does pass if a 1920's Bootlegger-type rush will occur.
How would law enforcement costs INCREASE if it was legalized? The billions (no citation) we spend on investigating, arrest, prosecuting, incarcerating, and "rehabilitating" people who do nothing other than smoke weed is absurd.
The more gang violence I see in my fair city the more I am in favour of legalization. It seems politicians in California have reached the same conclusion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2010, 02:44:41 PM
The more gang violence I see in my fair city the more I am in favour of legalization. It seems politicians in California have reached the same conclusion.
Unless you're in favour of legalizing cocaine and other hard drugs legalization of marijuana isn't going to affect your gang problem much.
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2010, 02:49:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2010, 02:44:41 PM
The more gang violence I see in my fair city the more I am in favour of legalization. It seems politicians in California have reached the same conclusion.
Unless you're in favour of legalizing cocaine and other hard drugs legalization of marijuana isn't going to affect your gang problem much.
And even then, the gangs will just find other mischief to get into. It's not like they're all just going to say "this sucks, guess I'll go work at Burger King".
Quote from: sbr on January 13, 2010, 02:37:53 PM
How would law enforcement costs INCREASE if it was legalized? The billions (no citation) we spend on investigating, arrest, prosecuting, incarcerating, and "rehabilitating" people who do nothing other than smoke weed is absurd.
If they plan on taxing it than that means the government will have to maintain a control over the manufacture and distribution of it. Marijuana is very easy to grow. It's not like alcohol or cocaine that involves a long drawn out process requiring some skill. You plant the seeds, you water the seeds, you harvest the leaves. That means that the government will still need to make it illegal to manufacture and distribute it.
However, now that it is legalized, the demand for marijuana will increase. Those people too afraid to use it will now do so and those who used it will probably use it more (or at least a more regular basis). This means increased pressure on law enforcement because more people will be involved in the manufacture and distribution. Which means more funds, training, and personnel dedicated to marijuana laws and their enforcement.
The need for investigating, arrest, prosecuting, incarcerating, and "rehabilitating" people will all increase exponentially.
Than comes the issues of legal manufacture, distribution, and sale? Will people be able to produce it outside of California and sneak it across the borders for legal sale? Much as the Bootleggers did from Canada? This will mean increased pressure on law enforcement along the state borders and on it's major roadways.
The only answer to the marijuana problem is either totally legalize it or keep it illegal. Legalizing it for the sake of tax money creates more potential issues than it solves.
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2010, 02:49:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2010, 02:44:41 PM
The more gang violence I see in my fair city the more I am in favour of legalization. It seems politicians in California have reached the same conclusion.
Unless you're in favour of legalizing cocaine and other hard drugs legalization of marijuana isn't going to affect your gang problem much.
Really? All the reports I hear say that the marijuana market is the most profitable. If that is taken away form the gangs I see that as nothing but positive.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 13, 2010, 02:51:25 PM
And even then, the gangs will just find other mischief to get into. It's not like they're all just going to say "this sucks, guess I'll go work at Burger King".
Sure people will find ways to get into mischief. But they will do less harm with a significant amount of their funding cut off.
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 03:04:44 PM
If they plan on taxing it than that means the government will have to maintain a control over the manufacture and distribution of it.
No, government just regulates it just like they regulate all other products available to the market.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2010, 03:11:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2010, 02:49:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2010, 02:44:41 PM
The more gang violence I see in my fair city the more I am in favour of legalization. It seems politicians in California have reached the same conclusion.
Unless you're in favour of legalizing cocaine and other hard drugs legalization of marijuana isn't going to affect your gang problem much.
Really? All the reports I hear say that the marijuana market is the most profitable. If that is taken away form the gangs I see that as nothing but positive.
Have any of the reports?
I don't have anything but my own observations. It seems that (like Strix mentioned) pot is very cheap and easy to produce. It is not addictive in the same way that cocaine is either. Now it's not that there's no money in marijuana (the money spent on complex grow ops is proof of that), but that I'd bet there's more money in cocaine. When people will pay $20 for a 0.1g rock, that's a high profit margin substance.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 13, 2010, 02:51:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2010, 02:49:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2010, 02:44:41 PM
The more gang violence I see in my fair city the more I am in favour of legalization. It seems politicians in California have reached the same conclusion.
Unless you're in favour of legalizing cocaine and other hard drugs legalization of marijuana isn't going to affect your gang problem much.
And even then, the gangs will just find other mischief to get into. It's not like they're all just going to say "this sucks, guess I'll go work at Burger King".
No. To be fair if you legalized all drugs you'd cut off the gangs major source of money. They wouldn't just go away, but they'd be a lot smaller and a lot less well armed.
But would the social and health consequences of legallized hard drugs be worth it? :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2010, 03:13:35 PM
No, government just regulates it just like they regulate all other products available to the market.
Just like they maintain control over the manufacture, distribution, and sale of all other products available to the market. Some to higher degree than others. Marijuana will be treated the same as alcohol and other legal drugs.
The issue is that marijuana is so easy to manufacture and so cheap that people won't be willing to buy it from the market
unless the government forces them to do so. And the government will have to force people to do so if they want to collect taxes from the sale and manufacture of marijuana.
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 03:20:06 PM
Just like they maintain control over the manufacture, distribution, and sale of all other products available to the market. Some to higher degree than others. Marijuana will be treated the same as alcohol and other legal drugs.
The issue is that marijuana is so easy to manufacture and so cheap that people won't be willing to buy it from the market unless the government forces them to do so. And the government will have to force people to do so if they want to collect taxes from the sale and manufacture of marijuana.
I'm not saying there isn't an issue here, but alcohol is probably even cheaper and easier to produce than pot.
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2010, 03:21:52 PM
I'm not saying there isn't an issue here, but alcohol is probably even cheaper and easier to produce than pot.
Not even close. Marijuana requires some seeds, a pot (or ground area), and water on a regular basis. Sure, you can get fancy with hydroponics and special lighting but it isn't required. The stuff you grow gives you more seeds, so once you start up the rest is easy and simple. Alcohol requires special equipment and ingredients that must be purchased not to mention the things needed for bottling and so forth.
Alcohol has always had the advantage of being easier to conceal than marijuana. If I want to make a good profit off marijuana than I need a large area of land. It's very hard to hide that for long.
We need saskganesh to chime in on this one.
I still think alcohol is easier to make.
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 03:20:06 PM
The issue is that marijuana is so easy to manufacture and so cheap that people won't be willing to buy it from the market unless the government forces them to do so. And the government will have to force people to do so if they want to collect taxes from the sale and manufacture of marijuana.
That is easily proven wrong. If marijuana is so easy to grow why do they buy it from drug dealers and in turn return huge profits to the gangs that control the market.
Also, if marijuana is so easy to grow then its cost to obtain it legally after decriminalization will be relatively low since it will no longer have the extra costs associated with growing and distributing an illegal product.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2010, 03:39:34 PM
That is easily proven wrong. If marijuana is so easy to grow why do they buy it from drug dealers and in turn return huge profits to the gangs that control the market.
Also, if marijuana is so easy to grow then its cost to obtain it legally after decriminalization will be relatively low since it will no longer have the extra costs associated with growing and distributing an illegal product.
Marijuana is a bulk product. It's not a small plant. It is also easily recognized by those who deal with it on a daily basis. People buy it from drug dealers because it's easier than worrying about getting arrested for growing marijuana or having your friends steal your plants when you aren't there. There is little honor among potheads.
I hate to repeat myself but....if the government wants to tax marijuana than it cannot decriminalize the manufacture of marijuana or it will gain very little revenue because there will be very little sales (or a lot of illegal sales). Yes, it will drive down the price of marijuana because it will be so easy to get. It will create whole new sets of laws and rules and government organizations to deal with the illegal manufacture, distribution, and sales of marijuana.
The whole idea that taxing marijuana will provide revenue for the state and lower costs associated with it's illegal use is hyperbole at best. It's just an attempt to appeal to the greed and avarice of politicians.
It's pretty easy to grow vegetables in your back yard, yet somehow grocery stores run a thriving produce business.
I support allowing citizens to pummel pot users on the street.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 13, 2010, 06:22:43 PM
I support allowing citizens to pummel pot users on the street.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 06:08:06 PM
having your friends steal your plants when you aren't there. There is little honor among potheads.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 06:08:06 PM
Marijuana is a bulk product. It's not a small plant. It is also easily recognized by those who deal with it on a daily basis. People buy it from drug dealers because it's easier than worrying about getting arrested for growing marijuana or having your friends steal your plants when you aren't there. There is little honor among potheads.
Marijuana
can be a bulk product. But isnt necessarily so. Around here there are all kinds of grow ops being busted that only produce hundreds of plants (ie small operations run on a small scale). And it is easy to recognize by pretty much everyone ;). People buy it from drug dealers because it is easier then growing for their own consumption. Also, given media reports, the quality of the pot grown here is better then what a amateur grower could do.
QuoteI hate to repeat myself but....if the government wants to tax marijuana than it cannot decriminalize the manufacture of marijuana or it will gain very little revenue because there will be very little sales (or a lot of illegal sales). Yes, it will drive down the price of marijuana because it will be so easy to get. It will create whole new sets of laws and rules and government organizations to deal with the illegal manufacture, distribution, and sales of marijuana.
The whole idea that taxing marijuana will provide revenue for the state and lower costs associated with it's illegal use is hyperbole at best. It's just an attempt to appeal to the greed and avarice of politicians
.
I still have no idea why you think there would be little sale of legal pot when there are huge sales of illegal pot. The demand will still be there and if your suspicion of even more people wanting it is true then the demand will go up. I have no idea how you think this demand will be filled if not by legal producers of pot that can be taxed by government.
edit: I can make cheap wine at home. But I dont. Why would it be any different for pot.
edit2: Its easy for people here in BC to grow their own plants. The police dont bother with it unless the number is in the hundreds. But still there is a healthy market for pot.
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2010, 06:23:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 13, 2010, 06:22:43 PM
I support allowing citizens to pummel pot users on the street.
:thumbsup:
Just wait until the day MMO's are criminalized. ;) :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2010, 06:50:44 PM
Just wait until the day MMO's are criminalized. ;) :D
And that day is coming soon.
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2010, 03:34:01 PM
We need saskganesh to chime in on this one.
I still think alcohol is easier to make.
Alcohol is easy to make, yes. But making high quality alcoholic beverages people will want to buy isn't as easy. I suppose you could always concentrate on the malt liquor market if you want an easy-to-produce alcoholic product.
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 06:08:06 PM
Marijuana is a bulk product.
Only if it's grown in bulk.
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 06:08:06 PM
It's not a small plant.
Yes it is.
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 06:08:06 PM
It is also easily recognized by those who deal with it on a daily basis.
So is bullshit.
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 06:08:06 PM
People buy it from drug dealers because it's easier than worrying about getting arrested for growing marijuana or having your friends steal your plants when you aren't there.
No, they buy it from drug dealers because that doesn't take as long as harvest. The ideal situation is to have harvest just when supply dries up. Growing more pot eliminates drug dealers.
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 06:08:06 PM
There is little honor among potheads.
There is little honour among douchebags.
Quote from: PRC on January 16, 2010, 12:06:51 AM
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 06:08:06 PM
Marijuana is a bulk product.
Only if it's grown in bulk.
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 06:08:06 PM
It's not a small plant.
Yes it is.
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 06:08:06 PM
It is also easily recognized by those who deal with it on a daily basis.
So is bullshit.
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 06:08:06 PM
People buy it from drug dealers because it's easier than worrying about getting arrested for growing marijuana or having your friends steal your plants when you aren't there.
No, they buy it from drug dealers because that doesn't take as long as harvest. The ideal situation is to have harvest just when supply dries up. Growing more pot eliminates drug dealers.
Quote from: Strix on January 13, 2010, 06:08:06 PM
There is little honor among potheads.
There is little honour among douchebags.
I am sure your friends don't appreciate you stealing their plants.
Quote from: Strix on January 16, 2010, 02:24:06 AM
I am sure your friends don't appreciate you stealing their plants.
Of course they appreciate me not stealing their plants.
PRC is a drug addict? How disappointing.
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2010, 07:08:10 AM
PRC is a drug addict? How disappointing.
Nah, I haven't smoked a joint in three years. Besides... habitual use of marijuana may inhibit ambition, but unlike alcohol it isn't destructive.
I don't know, I heard about some studies about its longterm effects on the brain.
Quote from: garbon on January 17, 2010, 01:59:42 AM
I don't know, I heard about some studies about its longterm effects on the brain.
Well being born has longterm effects on the brain too.
Charming but a ridiculous response.
Charming but a ludicrous response.
Nah. ;)