Cal. bill that will allow legally possess, grow and sell marijuana

[CleBrownsfan]

Interesting California bill to legalize pot: link

Don't think it will ever pass though...

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.

[lungs]

Until the DEA gets involved.

[lungs]

Dola

But that wouldn't be a concern as current for now as AG Holder has said he would defer to state laws in regards to marijuana in regards to the enforcement practices.

[JPhillips]

It should also wipe clean the record of anyone prosecuted for possession.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by lungs

Until the DEA gets involved.

Yeah. As long as it is illegal under federal law, you are still taking a risk.

Still, though, this might make sense for California in a number of ways because it is illegal federally. You can pitch it as "if someone is a real bad apple, the Fed is still there to arrest them and pay for their incarceration. It just should not be up to the people of California to pay to house them, feed them 3x a day, etc. etc. etc."

Of course, as long as these guys ( CCPOA.org - California Correctional Peace Officers Association )are around and able to lobby in Sacramento, the odds of this passing are somewhat south of unicorns flying through the trees (which, it being California, is, I will admit, at least possible).

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Yeah. As long as it is illegal under federal law, you are still taking a risk.

Still, though, this might make sense for California in a number of ways because it is illegal federally. You can pitch it as "if someone is a real bad apple, the Fed is still there to arrest them and pay for their incarceration. It just should not be up to the people of California to pay to house them, feed them 3x a day, etc. etc. etc."

Of course, as long as these guys ( CCPOA.org - California Correctional Peace Officers Association )are around and able to lobby in Sacramento, the odds of this passing are somewhat south of unicorns flying through the trees (which, it being California, is, I will admit, at least possible).

I took pictures of unicorns flying through the trees in my backyard last night!

[flere-imsaho]

California could clear its budget problems in one fell swoop (and more) by legalizing and taxing marijuana. Don't tell me someone in Sacramento hasn't thought of it.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

California could clear its budget problems in one fell swoop (and more) by legalizing and taxing marijuana. Don't tell me someone in Sacramento hasn't thought of it.

California? Hell, the whole country could get a major financial boost from legalizing marijuana and taxing the shit out of it like they do cigarettes and beer AND not paying the incarceration costs of people in jail due to marijuana.

This economy ought to be the best boost the "legalize marijuana" campaign has ever had - it just makes so much financial sense.

[Kodos]

As a person who has never smoked Mary J, it's time to make it legal. And tax the crap out of it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I wonder what the market would price legallized pot at. Right now, it's a function of the black market, so even with taxes included wouldn't it be cheaper if it were legal anyway? Just the government taking a cut instead of the various middlemen needed in the black market.

[RomaGoth]

If you sell it to the state, do they give you an IOU?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I wonder what the market would price legallized pot at. Right now, it's a function of the black market, so even with taxes included wouldn't it be cheaper if it were legal anyway? Just the government taking a cut instead of the various middlemen needed in the black market.

That will make an interesting case study when marijuana is finally legalized. And I would expect that whatever difference there is in the free market value vs. the black market value would quickly be erased by local, state and federal taxes.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Kodos

As a person who has never smoked Mary J, it's time to make it legal. And tax the crap out of it.

+1

[molson]

People really overstate the impact a marijuana tax would have on state and federal budgets.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Capitol Alert: Legal pot could generate $1.4 billion in revenue, tax board says

California estimates at 1.4B/year for instance.

They've certainly done more research than I.

[Kodos]

Hey, it certainly can't hurt.

[thesloppy]

Aside from tax revenue, it's also worth considering that you're not paying for incarcerating, rehabbing, paroling, and policing marijuana users.

[Pyser]

you realize its essentially legal in california already, right? you can find doctors online, bring them $150 cash, and theyll prescribe weed for you. then you go yo a dispensary, show your paper, and thats it

also, the black market and dispensary costs are very, very similar. about $60 or so for an eighth. if the state tried charging too much, people will just go back to this system. or teenagers.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Aside from tax revenue, it's also worth considering that you're not paying for incarcerating, rehabbing, paroling, and policing marijuana users.

this might be the bigger part of the equation for many states. I certainly haven't researched into it but it seems to be a no brainer to legalize something that is far softer than cigarettes/alcohol. The difference is the lobbying

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Pyser

you realize its essentially legal in california already, right? you can find doctors online, bring them $150 cash, and theyll prescribe weed for you. then you go yo a dispensary, show your paper, and thats it

also, the black market and dispensary costs are very, very similar. about $60 or so for an eighth. if the state tried charging too much, people will just go back to this system. or teenagers.

Personally, I think we should try to move away from the medical marijuana model. It's a disingenuous program the way it's set up, with only a fraction using for any real, diagnosed medical need. If we are going to legalize it, let's do it properly and effectively, rather than trying to push everything under the broken and tattered umbrella of medical marijuana, making the issue more convoluted and confused.

[dwardzala]

Where are you going to allow people to smoke it?

I personally do not want to be around second hand marijuana smoke, and given its intoxicating effects, I don't know that I want others to who might be driving to be exposed either. A lot people minimize the effects of it, but you are essentially taking the worst qualities of alcohol (the intoxicating effect) and combining it with the worst quality (IMHO) of cigarettes (second hand/indirect exposure) if you allow consumption in a public place.

Also, wouldn't californians need to buy carbon credits for the CO2 they are creating?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by dwardzala

Where are you going to allow people to smoke it?

The same places its smoked now?

Originally Posted by dwardzala

I personally do not want to be around second hand marijuana smoke, and given its intoxicating effects, I don't know that I want others to who might be driving to be exposed either. A lot people minimize the effects of it, but you are essentially taking the worst qualities of alcohol (the intoxicating effect) and combining it with the worst quality (IMHO) of cigarettes (second hand/indirect exposure) if you allow consumption in a public place.

How many public places can you smoke cigarettes at now? Simply banning all marijuana smoking in public if it gets legalized doesn't seem like a very difficult thing to imagine to me.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by dwardzala

Where are you going to allow people to smoke it?

I personally do not want to be around second hand marijuana smoke, and given its intoxicating effects, I don't know that I want others to who might be driving to be exposed either. A lot people minimize the effects of it, but you are essentially taking the worst qualities of alcohol (the intoxicating effect) and combining it with the worst quality (IMHO) of cigarettes (second hand/indirect exposure) if you allow consumption in a public place.

Also, wouldn't californians need to buy carbon credits for the CO2 they are creating?

I would imagine it would probably be restricted to your residence, which is one of the few places you can truly smoke as well.

Employers wouldn't let you smoke on break, can't smoke while driving, so that pretty much limits it.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by dwardzala

Where are you going to allow people to smoke it?

I personally do not want to be around second hand marijuana smoke, and given its intoxicating effects, I don't know that I want others to who might be driving to be exposed either. A lot people minimize the effects of it, but you are essentially taking the worst qualities of alcohol (the intoxicating effect) and combining it with the worst quality (IMHO) of cigarettes (second hand/indirect exposure) if you allow consumption in a public place.

Also, wouldn't californians need to buy carbon credits for the CO2 they are creating?

Well, I don't think legalizing marijuana means you're free to do it whenever and wherever you like. There are already laws against public intoxication, and driving while intoxicated, and I would think those would already cover 99% of your worries. The creation of public places to imbibe could certainly be a legitimate concern, but I think that's a different animal at this point.

In a semi-related question, how aware are y'alls of your state's current marijuana laws? They vary a TON by state, and I find it interesting that a lot of people, sometimes with very strong opinions on the subject, have very little knowledge of the laws in their own state.

In Oregon for example, we've got a medical marijuana program, making it legal for those with a card to grow and possess marijuana, but no dispensaries or sales network set up like the california model. Possession of less than an ounce, without a MMJ prescription, is a $500-1000 fine, but only a citation is issued, no arrest, no record, no probabtion. Over an ounce will get you prison time, but the state has become pretty lenient towards MJ, to the point that they've gone out of their way to announce that it is 'not a law-enforcement priority'.

I heard a story on the news recently about a guy who was arrested here recently for growing. But not just for growing, he was arrested for growing 'too many' plants outdoors, directly next door too a grade school, and he had previously been asked by the police to move his garden inside, but had refused to comply in a timely fashion. You know we're in a slightly different time, when the police ask you to move your marijuana garden indoors, away from the school kids, before arresting you.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by molson

People really overstate the impact a marijuana tax would have on state and federal budgets.

+1

Why would anybody even pay for it when you could, in theory, just grow it in your backyard? Or you have 1 friend who has plenty of room and you grow it at his house, etc. Little to no impact from this, with the exception of the "high volume" or "concetrated" growers. But then...why wouldn't they just keep selling to people like they do today?

I mean...I get that there are likley to be a market for the "experimentalists" who really have no clue where to find such a thing...but if its legal...how many of these people could still exist?

As far as policing costs and the like...meh, some degree of savings...but honestly, I think marijuana ends up being the excuse for putting the real assholes in prison (i.e. gang members w/ no other proven violations, etc.). So, I'm not seeing the major financial benefit here...maybe some administrative costs, but likely negligible in the bigger context.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Pyser

you realize its essentially legal in california already, right? you can find doctors online, bring them $150 cash, and theyll prescribe weed for you. then you go yo a dispensary, show your paper, and thats it

also, the black market and dispensary costs are very, very similar. about $60 or so for an eighth. if the state tried charging too much, people will just go back to this system. or teenagers.

Hell you don't even have to go to a dispensary you can have it delivered!

Orange County News - Taking the High Road With One of OC's Burgeoning Medical-Marijuana Delivery Services - page 1

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I would imagine it would probably be restricted to your residence, which is one of the few places you can truly smoke as well.

Employers wouldn't let you smoke on break, can't smoke while driving, so that pretty much limits it.

The one main legal issue I see is that for most employers if you have an accident at work and are drug tested you'd have marijuana in your system, since it stays in your system for well close to a month. How would these cases be treated now, since it's legal?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Why would anybody even pay for it when you could, in theory, just grow it in your backyard? Or you have 1 friend who has plenty of room and you grow it at his house, etc. Little to no impact from this, with the exception of the "high volume" or "concetrated" growers. But then...why wouldn't they just keep selling to people like they do today?

Legalizing it would make it cheaper than it is now because it cuts the middlemen out of the equation. Not even the gov't would be stupid enough to legalize something that could bring in as much money as marijuana and fuck it up by making it more expensive to buy legally.

I'd be willing to bet homegrowers would have to buy a license per plant and it would have to be for personal use. I'm no tax expert, but wouldn't anyone trying to sell it out of their home then run into the same issues anyone else does trying to buy blackmarket shit? Not to mention the seller running into numerous tax issues as well?

Its the number 1 cash crop for several states and the gov't doesn't see a dime of it. On top of that demand would go up if it was legal. As stated above, you're also saving ridiculous amounts of money by not putting the fake assholes in jail.

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

As far as policing costs and the like...meh, some degree of savings...but honestly, I think marijuana ends up being the excuse for putting the real assholes in prison (i.e. gang members w/ no other proven violations, etc.). So, I'm not seeing the major financial benefit here...maybe some administrative costs, but likely negligible in the bigger context.

Using it as a reason to put "real assholes" in prison when many, many more are put in jail strictly because of it doesn't make it ok.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

+1

Why would anybody even pay for it when you could, in theory, just grow it in your backyard? Or you have 1 friend who has plenty of room and you grow it at his house, etc. Little to no impact from this, with the exception of the "high volume" or "concetrated" growers. But then...why wouldn't they just keep selling to people like they do today?

A volume grower would much prefer to make a volume sale, and given the choice, I'm sure they'd prefer to sell to the government and get a receipt, rather than to keep selling to Weird Jimmy, and thirty other scrappy dudes. Why doesn't Budweiser cut out the middlemen and just sell on the street to individuals? Because that's horrible business. Likewise, why would anybody buy Budweiser in the first place, when they can just grow hops in their backyard and brew in the kitchen? Plenty do, but then again, billions more prefer to get a beer the instant they want one, rather than having to tend to it for 3 hours a day, for six months, before taking a sip.

I mean...I get that there are likley to be a market for the "experimentalists" who really have no clue where to find such a thing...but if its legal...how many of these people could still exist?

Every regular marijuana user in the world would prefer to buy it in a controlled environment, from a controlled source, with consistent quality and quantity, rather than getting it from a sketchy dude, at his convenience, with unknown results.

As far as policing costs and the like...meh, some degree of savings...but honestly, I think marijuana ends up being the excuse for putting the real assholes in prison (i.e. gang members w/ no other proven violations, etc.). So, I'm not seeing the major financial benefit here...maybe some administrative costs, but likely negligible in the bigger context.

That is just plain ridiculous. I think given the choice of who the 'real asshole' is, between a gang member (or anybody else in the world) w/ many other proven violations, and a gang member w/ no proven violations, the choice is pretty easy. No criminal masterminds are avoiding murder and racketeering charges, and then getting tripped up on marijuana possession.

Respectfully, it doesn't sound like you have very much knowledge on the topic, but you definitely shouldn't take that as an insult, because we are talking about weed and stoners here, I'm not fooling myself.

[tarcone]

And you can brew beer in your home or make wine. But I doubt you could sell it legally.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

The one main legal issue I see is that for most employers if you have an accident at work and are drug tested you'd have marijuana in your system, since it stays in your system for well close to a month. How would these cases be treated now, since it's legal?

That is a pretty interesting case.

Right now, marijuana is illegal even to produce for testing or scientific purposes, so the best kind of wishful thinking I could summon up would hope that once legalized, and tested more thoroughly, maybe we could develop a better and more accurate means of testing for marijuana. That doesn't answer the question of what we would do NOW though, and those early cases would certainly set the stage for things to come, so I dunno how those kind of cases would be handled gracefully.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I'd be willing to bet homegrowers would have to buy a license per plant and it would have to be for personal use. I'm no tax expert, but wouldn't anyone trying to sell it out of their home then run into the same issues anyone else does trying to buy blackmarket shit? Not to mention the seller running into numerous tax issues as well?

Yeah, but you can make any law you want...try enforcing it. Hell..it's technically illegal today and they really have no way to stop the vast majority from growing their own.

As far as taxes go...local "dealers" do it today...why would that change anything? Hell, I bet a solid portion of the ebay businesses out there dont claim all (or any) taxes on their "homegrown" business. If it is easy enough to do...people will tend to avoid taxes.

Its the number 1 cash crop for several states and the gov't doesn't see a dime of it. On top of that demand would go up if it was legal. As stated above, you're also saving ridiculous amounts of money by not putting the fake assholes in jail.

Not if you're repurposing these resources to find the tax evaders.

Using it as a reason to put "real assholes" in prison when many, many more are put in jail strictly because of it doesn't make it ok.

That wasn't my contention...it was a statement supporting my contention that there is no substantial financial benefit for the government to legalize it.

[thesloppy]

Remember that before you even get to jail (which has been estimated to cost $60,000 per inmate, per year) you have to get arrested, and go to trial (often with a public defender), and once you get out you've got probation. That's dozens of state government workers, and hundreds of man hours, before we've even touched on the cost of prison. I think it's ridiculous to say there wouldn't be any substantial financial benefit. Note that California has already stopped enforcing most of it's marijuana laws, so their $1.4 billion estimate doesn't even take into account those costs that many other states are still paying for.

They aren't taxing any personal growers, so abandon that notion. The taxes are for retail sales:

"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."

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

A volume grower would much prefer to make a volume sale, and given the choice, I'm sure they'd prefer to sell to the government and get a receipt, rather than to keep selling to Weird Jimmy, and thirty other scrappy dudes. Why doesn't Budweiser cut out the middlemen and just sell on the street to individuals? Because that's horrible business. Likewise, why would anybody buy Budweiser in the first place, when they can just grow hops in their backyard and brew in the kitchen? Plenty do, but then again, billions more prefer to get a beer the instant they want one, rather than having to tend to it for 3 hours a day, for six months, before taking a sip.

Because "Budweiser dont grow on trees"

Seriously...Budweiser isnt "user-ready" and requires a ton of mixture and time to ferment and effort and likely many other things that make it impractical for most people.

Yes, there is a difference between just watering a plant and picking off buds and creating the more concentrated versions that are concocted by the more serious "businessmen"...but it isn't exactly something that many would find overly burdensome to get a reasonable product that "works good enough".

Every regular marijuana user in the world would prefer to buy it in a controlled environment, from a controlled source, with consistent quality and quantity, rather than getting it from a sketchy dude, at his convenience, with unknown results.

I dont doubt this...but does an effective doubling of the (current) price make that worthwhile for the majority? I'm not debating some would still buy it via the 7-11 (or wherever)...just pointing out that not every "dealer" is quite the sketchy scumbag that most might "imagine".

That is just plain ridiculous. I think given the choice of who the 'real asshole' is, between a gang member (or anybody else in the world) w/ many other proven violations, and a gang member w/ no proven violations, the choice is pretty easy. No criminal masterminds are avoiding murder and racketeering charges, and then getting tripped up on marijuana possession.

Criminal masterminds are not the one's that are typically doing the driveby or robbing the convenience store or directly causing the problems you see...it's usually the low men on the totem pole. This low men on the totem are low on the totem pole because they have less or no previous experience (and certainly no "record"). What I'm calling "real assholes" are those people that are typically causing these types of problems (or on their way to) and local police know who they are...whether that be thru insiders, tatoos, etc. So don't try to characterize me as stating "EVERYBODY" who gets arrested for pot is a "real asshole".

Respectfully, it doesn't sound like you have very much knowledge on the topic, but you definitely shouldn't take that as an insult, because we are talking about weed and stoners here, I'm not fooling myself.

I'm glad you know me so well to make such assumptions.

[thesloppy]

Well, I think you've got very strong beliefs, based on assumptions about marijuana growing, usage and users that are fundamentally and obviously wrong, but I'm certainly not going to put any more effort into changing your mind than you are.

[SteveMax58]

Strong beliefs? I'm stating opnions of the financial implications of legalizing it. I'm basing those on my own life experiences and (admittedly non-expert) analysis of what people will pay for, when "free" is a plausible alternative.

As always...no "one size fits all" on any situation. YMMV.

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Remember that before you even get to jail (which has been estimated to cost $60,000 per inmate, per year) you have to get arrested, and go to trial (often with a public defender), and once you get out you've got probation. That's dozens of state government workers, and hundreds of man hours, before we've even touched on the cost of prison. I think it's ridiculous to say there wouldn't be any substantial financial benefit. Note that California has already stopped enforcing most of it's marijuana laws, so their $1.4 billion estimate doesn't even take into account those costs that many other states are still paying for.

They aren't taxing any personal growers, so abandon that notion. The taxes are for retail sales:

"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."

There definitely certain things that would save money, but other things that would cost money.

Pros:
-Tax revenue
-Savings in Law Enforcement (though this is already accomplished in many states by de-criminalization. In states where I have experience, nobody does time or gets probation for marijuana alone, and its pretty rare that marijuana is the ONLY crime a particular defendant is dealing with. Officers tend to look the other way on those people)
-Personal freedom
-More resources/jail space for "real criminals".

Cons:
-Health costs (mental and physical - I know there's conflicting studies)
-Administration/Regulation costs. Marijuana leaves the criminal arena but enters the civil.
-Loss of a prosecution tool (It's not that "criminal masterminds are avoiding murder and racketeering charges, and then getting tripped up on marijuana possession", it's just an easily provable crime that pretty much every criminal commits. It's a valuable tool in more ways than I could describe here. It creates chips for plea bargains, evidence of drug issues to get people in treatment for other drugs that they're known to take, provides easy probable cause for arrest (which can reveal other crimes), etc. I know some people have contrary views on stuff like that, but marijuana can be a helpful tool to get bigger fish.
-Marijuana DUIs would go through the roof
-Increased use by minors (I know some people don't think that's a problem)
-New kinds of law enforcement costs. People operate at the legal margins. Let them smoke it in their house, and more of them will smoke it in cars, and in public, and with kids, and while they're pregnant. Many will try to grow it themselves and try to undercut the government's tax-heavy prices. So you're still going to have that stuff to deal with.

I think on the whole, it's worth legalizing. But let's not ignore the cons, so they can be mitigated.

[thesloppy]

Free is a monetary value. Regardless of how 'free' it is (it's not), or how 'easy' it is to grow (it's not). The worlds' mostest freest and totally easiest of weed is still takes at least three months to grow. If you don't like the beer analogy, what about tobacco? You can grow arguably better, less harmful tobacco at home, with much less effort than that required of marijuana, but nobody does so, and instead choose to spend obnoxious amounts of money, in order to inhale the most pollutants. That weed could pay you, and somehow grow itself in the tiniest apartment, without any lights or food, and you're still not going to be able to smoke it for 3 months.

If you don't like the beer analogy, what about tobacco? You can grow arguably better, less harmful tobacco at home, with much less effort than that required of marijuana, but nobody does so, and instead choose to spend obnoxious amounts of money, in order to inhale the most pollutants. We could all grow our own apples relatively easily, we could even pick 'em from our neighbors tress, but very few do. It's called convenience, and it drive splenty of people in this country. If you claim you don't grasp the concept of convenience over cost, then I think you're just being arbitrary, and if you don't directly connect stoners and convenience, I would once again assert that you don't sound like you know what you're talking about.

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

If you don't like the beer analogy, what about tobacco? You can grow arguably better, less harmful tobacco at home, with much less effort than that required of marijuana, but nobody does so, and instead choose to spend obnoxious amounts of money, in order to inhale the most pollutants. We could all grow our own apples relatively easily, we could even pick 'em from our neighbors tress, but very few do. It's called convenience, and it drive splenty of people in this country. If you claim you don't grasp the concept of convenience over cost, then I think you're just being arbitrary, and if you don't directly connect stoners and convenience, I would once again assert that you don't sound like you know what you're talking about.

The difference is that this country already has an extensive, illegal, marijuana network. A lot of that will go away if it's legal, but not all of it (especially if taxes are prohibitive, which they have to be to make it worth it, considering the financial and societal costs). It will still be in place. Nobody grows their own tobacco.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

I think on the whole, it's worth legalizing. But let's not ignore the cons, so they can be mitigated.

I certainly don't mean to suggest that there aren't any cons, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. It's also worth considering that legalizing marijuana, and regulating the sales, would put most of the thousands of marijuana middlemen out of work, and those dudes would likely look for other work in similar grey/black markets, which might not be a tasty immediate result. It's also worth noting that it's a dicey subject to begin with, and with our loopy government, the results of legalization could be so horribly mutated and wonky that even the advocates wouldn't be happy. As I said earlier somewhere, I'd hate things to get legalized entirely under the auspices of 'medical marijauna', which probably applies to 5-10% of those currently using those benefits, and would undoubtedly balloon into something truly ridiculous and absurd under federal guidance.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I would once again assert that you don't sound like you know what you're talking about.

And I'm the one with strong beliefs, eh?

I suspect somebody hears what he wants to hear when somebody disagrees with his strong beliefs.

[Julio Riddols]

I'd have gone with the tobacco argument too. One could grow his own if desired, but one prefers to purchase cigarettes, even at the prices they have climbed to. Even if one "Rolls his own" he still buys the products from a shop.

For marijuana, I think the best part of legalizing it would be that it would be taking one of the most commonly used drugs out of criminals hands. There would no longer be dealers who are selling coke or heroin on the side and dealing weed as well, which will likely have an impact on the amount of people who go on to harder drugs due to the availability of them. In other words, people that smoke weed will not be around the other drugs as often (of course it will still happen) or associate as often with people who want to sell them the other drugs.

You add that with the money it would bring in, and if a state or two can show that they can implement the legalization of marijuana properly, I think it would be a damn fine idea for the whole country to get behind eventually.

Police it like alcohol and tobacco are policed today. I'm almost certain that when one state finally does make the leap to legalization, others will begin following suit once the positives begin to reveal themselves to a wider portion of the general voting public. Cali is a great place to start.

Taking a page from several foreign countries where it is legal seems to be a good idea, as it seems to have made a good difference in the countries where this has occurred.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

And I'm the one with strong beliefs, eh?

I suspect somebody hears what he wants to hear when somebody disagrees with his strong beliefs.

Again, if we're talking about '"stoners like (and will gladly pay for) convenience" I really don't know where you think the wiggle room is.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Yes, there is a difference between just watering a plant and picking off buds and creating the more concentrated versions that are concocted by the more serious "businessmen"...but it isn't exactly something that many would find overly burdensome to get a reasonable product that "works good enough".

I'm not sure about that, you can grow veggies at home, but not many people really do...

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

The difference is that this country already has an extensive, illegal, marijuana network. A lot of that will go away if it's legal, but not all of it (especially if taxes are prohibitive, which they have to be to make it worth it, considering the financial and societal costs). It will still be in place. Nobody grows their own tobacco.

Sure, some folks would remain with their tried and true smalltime dealers, but I think those people would be in the vast minority. I think non-users underestimate how easy it is to 'get weed'. Certainly not everyone is a sketchy scumbag, some dealers are great dudes, or might even be your close friend...but that doesn't mean they're on your schedule, always answer the phone, live conveniently nearby, or offer top quality, quantity, and a varied selection....your usually lucky if they're one of those things. Any regular stoner would gladly pay for any/all of those things.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I would imagine it would probably be restricted to your residence, which is one of the few places you can truly smoke as well.

What about homes with children? Should they have to get high off of second-hand pot stink?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Again, if we're talking about '"stoners like (and will gladly pay for) convenience" I really don't know where you think the wiggle room is.

The difference is that you assume it would be as cheap as it is today...only with more availability.

I'm merely pointing out that the government can't possibly take a piece of the pie and have it turnout cheaper. This makes it easier to rationalize growing it.

BTW...the analogy to tobacco really isn't that close either (maybe apples are better...but there are too many alternatives to apples vs. pot). People who smoke cigaretes (again...majority...not necessarily "you" if you happen to smoke) are addicted to the other crap in it. So, growing your own tobacco wouldnt satisfy the addiction of "cigarettes" by smoking "tobacco".

I understand the point on convenience...but my only argument was that there is a pricepoint people are used to paying for pot...go over it a little, and people won't mind, double it by taxing the hell out of it (i.e. the only real reason the government might legalize it), and many will opt to find cheaper methods that are already familiar to them.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I'm not sure about that, you can grow veggies at home, but not many people really do...

People don't because veggies are ridiculously cheap. If the government levied massive taxes on them because they were deemed harmful and recreational...they would be much more expensive than $0.49/lb (or whatever).

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

What about homes with children? Should they have to get high off of second-hand pot stink?

You could probably smoke in the outside area of your own residence. I don't think you can get high off second-hand pot smoke....but I'm not going to defend someone smoking weed with their kids in the room. And it certainly does reek. It's worth noting that the actual act of smoking marijuana isn't analogous to smoking indoors though, as what qualifies as a typical marijuana smoker might take 6 puffs a night, whereas a 'typical' smoker is likely at least a half-a-pack-day-er, which is likely hundreds or thousands more puffs.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I understand the point on convenience...but my only argument was that there is a pricepoint people are used to paying for pot...go over it a little, and people won't mind, double it by taxing the hell out of it (i.e. the only real reason the government might legalize it), and many will opt to find cheaper methods that are already familiar to them.

I agree with you in theory, but for whatever it's worth, a $50 an ounce tax as stated in the article, is not doubling the cost. An ounce at a CA dispensary is likely between $400 and $500, so it's a 10-15% increase. Any consumer would gladly pay that extra 10-15% if it were passed on directly to them, and even that isn't necessarily guaranteed. As someone stated earlier, the government is (likely) smart enough to not price itself out of the game immediately, and for all we know the dispensaries are making a high enough margin without that they could stomach that tax without effectively raising the prices at all...especially if gray/black market competition still exists at the same pricepoint.