Anytime a marijuana issue comes up- folks from both sides actually show support for the legalization of marijuana. We have not really had numbers to support our findings- until now: 1) 30,000 people killed in Mexico in past 4 years 2) Prop 19 in California (small amount legal for age 21 and up), if passed this November, would generate $1.4B for California's budget 3) Prop 19 would similarly lower law enforcement and penitentiary expenses by the hundreds of millions. Law enforcement would focus on other, more serious crimes. 4) Drug lord revenues cut by 2-4% with loss of the CA market 5) Assuming the spread of California marijuana across the US, drug lord revenues cut up to 20%. This is a California only proposition. If marijuana leakage to other, Western US states reduces revenues by up to 20%, could we then speculate that if the entire US, or most of it anyways, legalized marijuana that revenues would drop 50-70%? I don't know, and yes I am speculating. A 20% loss is extreme, a 60% loss is devastating to the drug lords. And our national increase in revenues- would it be $20-30B? It's definitely a flip in the revenue-expenses line of any budget. To be fair, we could/should expect a higher usage rate, which any mandate should commit a significant percentage of tax revenues to education and treatment facilities. Key quote:
legalize it, but there better be a retirement package in place for all of the incredible K-9 dogs that are going to get hit in their pocketbooks If pot were to be legalized, it's going to take some serious planning of laws on the books for the legalization to work. I'm for it if this can be done, and I don't even smoke it. Weed does less harm to the public than a Baconator burger or idiots texting while driving (just my opinion).
Somehow I don’t believe the motivation behind this is so I can enjoy my individual liberty and grow/smoke my own pot on my own parcel. It’ll probably just increase the chance of me getting arrested for not applying for some cultivation permit with the USDA or FDA or not working a deal with the UAW to harvest it. 30% of the DEA would just transfer (and their budget) over to the ATF. Freedom!
Legalize it already... Legalize ALL drugs. You can die from over the counter Tylenol. People must use common sense, but we need to kill the illegal drug trade. 30,000 Mexicans killed over drugs is unexcusable. Eliminate the problem. Make the drug lords earn their money the right way. They can do it legally and still make money without having to kill anyone. (well the drugs may kill, but then thats free will)
would legalizing pot really reduce the profits of the drug dealers that much? I'm asking because I've always thought legalization with taxing it would work but as I've grown older I start to wonder if you tax it, how much in taxes is enough to push people to still purchase from a dealer who will work in cash with taxes? Or would it knock out the dealer but not increase taxes as marijuana is a weed that if allowed to grow legally isn't that tough to grow in your backyard, would enough people say screw the taxes and just grow their own?
How many people still brew their own alcohol illegally? Screw that. Just go to 711 and get some Newcastle or Shiner. Thats better than whatever **** you can cook up yourself, probably.
Regarding buying on the black market to avoid taxes - Most people simply aren't going to go buy it from a drug dealer when they can pick it up in a safe, legal environment. Just look at how many medical marijuana patients already buy from stores with higher prices and SALES TAX (yes, they're already getting sales tax on millions of $ of pot sales in CA). Drug dealers in California don't sell much to medicinal marijuana patients because you can get good stuff at good prices in a safe environment all over the place. When the general public can do the same, the dealers will sell as much pot as they do beer and cigarettes (meaning none). Regarding growing your own - I laugh at this one. People can grow all kinds of things in their backyard to save coin but by and large, we don't. We buy everything from the grocery store because it is convenient. And now people really expect stoners, widely considered to be lazy SOBs, to break that trend and grow it themselves? Really? I'm sure there will be a lot of people who try it and decide that the time they invested versus the quality they get is simply not worth the time. Others will grow their own and avoid the stores - just like people do with veggies right now. Also, outdoor grown pot is simply lower-quality than the good stuff you can currently buy at medical dispensaries. And growing indoors is an operation that not many ppl will bother with. I think the revenue numbers are likely high, but personally any revenue gained is just a bonus to doing something that should have been done long ago.
Couldnt agree more Johnny. Ive known a few people who've partaken in the growing process before and got out of it due to risk, and let me tell you, its a full time job. Of course Im not talking about a plant here or there, but a whole greenhouse. It takes a lot of time and energy to make the good stuff.
How many people still brew their own alcohol illegally? Screw that. Just go to 711 and get some Newcastle or Shiner. Since you're using beer in your example and using the verb "brew" then very, very few are brewing beer (making alcohol) illegally. I don't have the latest laws but one can make a lot of beer for your own use.
Johnny M, very good post. I love the perception that potheads are lazy. Makes me giggle! Pot is my medicine for focusness, and it keeps me from being prescribed the chemical concoction Drs want me to take.
It's really frustrating to talk to people who consider potheads to be lazy AND believe potheads will grow all their own pot - even when presented the alternatives that people don't currently produce a substantial amount of their own alcohol, tobacco, or fruits/vegetables. In my experience they either completely ignore the fallacy or they just come back with the trump card of all trump cards - "it's just what I believe".
I've had many friends try and harvest 2 plants and couldn't. Just like any crop, it takes a lot of time and maintenance.
As a conservative I'm supposed that drugs are bad, but as a normal sane person and one that preaches personal choice I say LEGALIZE IT, Regulate it, and Tax it! I don't and wont smoke, but I don't care if you do. Just BE SMART. If you're a pilot, don't smoke before you fly. Common sense type things that people seem to have less and less of now days.
Homebrewing Law This is one thing Carter got right! This is from the TABC code SUBCHAPTER B. HOME PRODUCTION OF WINE, ALE, MALT LIQUOR, OR BEER Sec. 109.21. HOME PRODUCTION OF WINE, ALE, MALT LIQUOR, OR BEER. (a) The head of a family or an unmarried adult may produce for the use of his family or himself not more than 200 gallons of wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer, per year. No license or permit is required. (b) The commission may prohibit the use of any ingredient it finds detrimental to health or susceptible of use to evade this code. Only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits may be produced under this section. Only ale, malt liquor, or beer made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of malted barley with hops, or their products, and with or without other malted or unmalted cereals, may be produced under this section. The possession of wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer produced under this section is not an offense if the person making it complies with all provisions of this section and the wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer is not distilled, fortified, or otherwise altered to increase its alcohol content. (c) There is no annual state fee for beverages produced in compliance with this section. Sec. 109.22. DELIVERY OF HOME-PRODUCED WINE, ALE, MALT LIQUOR, OR BEER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. (a) This section applies only to a person who is authorized under Section 109.21(a) to produce wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer. (b) For the purpose of participating in an organized tasting, evaluation, competition, or literary review, a person to whom this section applies may deliver wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer produced and manufactured by the person to locations that are not licensed under this code for the purpose of submitting those products to an evaluation at an organized tasting competition that is closed to the general public or by a reviewer whose reviews are published if: (1) no charge of any kind is made for the wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer, for its delivery, or for attendance at the event; and (2) the commission consents in writing to the delivery. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize an increase in the quantity of wine, ale, malt liquor, or beer authorized to be produced by a person under the authority of Section 109.21(a) of this code. Basicly you could make aprox 2,160 12oz bottles of beer under current state law. Or you could make just over 13.2013 KEGS of beer. And I know I can make beer that would taste just as good if not better than Shiner.
Does anybody have numbers on how many people are currently in jail in cali for small amounts of weed (and nothing else)?
With prisons overcrowded and police departments and prosecutors barely able to keep up with property crimes and violence, isn’t it maybe a little bit nuts to spend so much time and taxpayer money putting pot smokers in jail?
The Link This story says that about 60% of Mexican drug cartels profits in 2006 were from the marijuana trade. Maybe legalization wouldn't curb the profits entirely, but it would have to hurt them to some degree.
Accurate, I think that makes my first post's speculation of 60% good Thanks for finding this article- so, now assuming a 60% drop in cartel revenues we can speculate from there. Would this cause a drop off in the number of cartels, their sizes, their funds for weapons and tools to transport drugs?? Clearly it would to some degree, but more importantly the incentive to be in this business would be much less- and that is not speculation.
it's absurd to assume a 60% drop in cartel revenue. absurd. that is nationwide and not just california. also, why wouldn't cartels still try to import the drugs just to sell them legally through stores? it could be argued that there is a greater incentive to be in the pot business because you could sell it legally.
Johnny, You know how you need a license to sell liquor? And that license costs money and pays for inspectors to monitor your business? Well, the same would happen for marijuana. A Mexican based cartel, with no experience of legal enterprises, would have a difficult time competing with a corporate, American based company producing marijuana locally and in large numbers.
I don't say that there would be a 60% drop in cartel business, but surely it would hurt them to some degree. Compare it to bootlegging during prohibition. Is there illegal brewing of alcohol at this time? Sure, but how big a problem is it? A few hillbillies with stills making moonshine doesn't equal the drug cartel problem.
"As a conservative I'm supposed that drugs are bad, but as a normal sane person and one that preaches personal choice I say LEGALIZE IT, Regulate it, and Tax it! " Incorrect, the National Review is all for legalizing. William F Buckley was too. The Link
