California voters will decide whether to legalize marijuana

[boaz]

... This will only tax non medical adult retail purchases. ...

correction: this prop will not tax anything. the only tax in this prop is in the title. :jointsmile: all this prop does is gives the counties and local communities of California the legal right to legalize non medical sales to adults and gives them the right, but not the requirement, to tax it. in reality, this may never actually turn into any tax even if this prop is passed. :twocents:

boaz Reviewed by boaz on 01-09-2010. California voters will decide whether to legalize marijuana Christian Science Monitor California voters will decide whether to legalize marijuana The first state to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, California leads the country in decriminalizing the sale and use of cannabis. Other states are considering the issue, too, but critics warn of the impact on young people. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Daniel B. Wood Staff writer posted December 18, 2009 at 5:30 pm EST Rating: 5

[leadmagnet]

the centerfold :stoned:

Hindu Kush x Skunk? Sounds like you're trying to breed your own highrise (Master Kush).

[Phunnyman]

"Therefore, itâ??s important to ask a host of questions: Who is going to determine or regulate how marijuana is produced and distributed? Who will it be distributed by? How is the state going to collect the taxes? Will it really have an impact on the illicit trafficking and production of marijuana? "

These questions are very relevant in my opinion. This could also set the precedent for many other states to follow so how it is done once it voted into law is vitally important.

I think it would have an impact upon illicit production and trafficking; Why buy what is offered when one can either grow their own and grow better than whats available? The consumer will have market choice and economic freedom, which results in lower prices, increased product selection, and increased technology creation. When the consumer has that choice they tend to "vote out" inferior products by not purchasing them.

The smuggling of pot into the U.S. could possibly drop altogether when the demand is satisfied by production here by those who grow organically and more cleanly, and care more about their product than the large grows in say Mexico. The costs and risks associated with growing over there and then smuggling in wouldn't be worth it when someone can simply utilize their back yard (property they already own and are taxed upon), a spare room, attic, etc.. to grow superior stuff.

Think about the grows being done in our national forests and parks by illegals that are creating so much environmental damage. That could go away as well.

The state is going to collect taxes and profit from the following I think;
The amount of cash currently dedicated to the ridiculous law enforcement agency effort towards God gift to us all can be used in either other law enforcement areas or better yet, dedicated to the education system to assist our youth into becoming better as a generation and helping them pull their heads out of their asses.

The additional money received from increased sales taxation upon grow equipment would add in to a small point. The tax money created from over the counter sales much like buying a pack of cigarettes, and we know for sure those little bastards kill you.

The only reason tobacco isn't illegal at this point is control of production = tax monies. That could be a huge source of income based upon those who either don't have the space, knowledge, desire, time, or want to grow and the convenience to pick up a pack of joints is more valuable. (There are WAY MORE mj smokers than mj growers out there I'm thinking.)

Speaking of control, think of how many prisoners are locked up for simple possession, growing, and/or selling who shouldn't be there? The costs of locking up someone is not cheap and releasing those prisoners could further fund locking up the baby rapers, molesters, and other sociopaths.

The extra jobs that could be created just like those dispenceries that sell in Cali right now, the grow shops, and related product sales would increase accordingly and they are all required to pay sales and income taxes as well.

I think the benefits of legalizing and decriminalizing outweighs the cost of fighting a war against something that God gifted us, a shift in the flow of tax monies from every department at the state and federal level would be more rational and practical going towards education, help and healthcare for our veterans, etc...

The first immediate change would prove to be a challenge but a most important example for the rest of the states.

[boaz]

^ great points. I had not thought of that, even if over the counter sales of cannabis are never directly taxed by the counties, this prop, if passed, would still likely generate sh*#loads of tax dollars from the assumed spike in grow supplies sales. :rasta: and, as you, said the huge savings in the prison costs for the state.

I don't really know a whole lot about this prop, I discovered it on this forum from someone else's post last year, but I like it. It gives the power to the counties and communities of the state to decide all these important questions. kinda like Jefferson's ideas of federalism taken to the next level. :smokin:

here is the link to their site ===> :bong:

[boaz]

SacBee
Opinion - California Forum - The Conversation
ShareThis

Ballot measure is way to properly police pot

By James P. Gray
Special to The Bee
Published: Sunday, Jan. 10, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 4E

As a retired Orange County judge, I've been on the front lines of the drug war for three decades, and I know from experience that the current approach is simply not working. Our marijuana policy must change in order to achieve the following goals:

â?¢ Reduce marijuana consumption by children.

â?¢ Stop or reduce the violence that accompanies the growing and distribution of marijuana.

â?¢ Stop or reduce the corruption that accompanies the growing and distribution of marijuana.

â?¢ Stop or reduce crime both by people trying to get money to purchase marijuana and by those under its influence.

â?¢ Reduce the harm to people who consume marijuana.

â?¢ Reduce the number of people we must put into our jails and prisons.

California's Initiative to Tax, Control and Regulate Cannabis â?? which will appear on the November ballot â?? will accomplish each of those goals. Our present policy of marijuana prohibition will never accomplish any of them â?? prohibition has been pursued since the early 1970s, and the entire situation has gotten demonstrably worse.

As an added benefit (no small thing during these challenging times) the initiative will generate billions of dollars in revenue to fund essential services, according to studies by the Board of Equalization and the Legislative Analyst's Office.

By allowing each city in California the option to devise a program for the regulated sale of cannabis to adults, marijuana would soon become less available for children. Why? Ask young people and they will tell you that currently it is easier for them to obtain marijuana than alcohol. That's because today's illegal marijuana dealers don't ask for ID!

The initiative contains significant safeguards and controls: It increases the penalty for providing marijuana to minors, expressly prohibits public consumption, forbids smoking marijuana while minors are present and bans possession on school grounds.

Regulating cannabis will put street drug dealers and organized crime out of business â?? just as the repeal of alcohol prohibition put the Al Capones of booze out of business. This will allow police to redirect their resources toward protecting the public by preventing violent crime.

Most of the health risks of the usage of marijuana today are caused by its unknown strength and unknown purity. For example, sometimes the illicit marijuana has been laced with methamphetamines. But the FDA resolved virtually all of these problems with over-the-counter and prescription drugs years ago, just as the repeal of alcohol prohibition virtually eliminated the "bathtub gin" impurity problems.

Under this initiative, all crimes committed by people under the influence of marijuana would still be prosecuted, just like we do today with alcohol-related offenses. Holding people accountable for their actions, instead of what they put into their own bodies, is a truly legitimate criminal justice function.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James P. Gray is a retired judge of Orange Superior Court and the author of "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It" (Temple University Press). Reach Gray at [email protected] or through his Web site at Judge Jim Gray - Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed - End War On Drugs.
.

[SirSmellyEwic]

lmao christian science monitor .... roflmao... never thought id see that trash here. ooooo... click on the link and right beside it you see... "did abortion doctor need to die?" eh... if i wasn't clean now i'd roll one up with a bible page right now. lmao.

[boaz]

^ I don't read CSM but I've found them to be relatively fair about this issue in the past. :twocents: do you hate Christians or something? :wtf:

[boaz]

^ don't answer that. please keep your rants off my thread. thank you.

[SirSmellyEwic]

^ I don't read CSM but I've found them to be relatively fair about this issue in the past. :twocents: do you hate Christians or something? :wtf:

not Christians. Just Christianity... as well as every other organized religion including atheism. I think that when someone has a god on their side, or a god named "theory"... umm, well, they are more likely to ask questions like "does this guy need to die"... no no one needs to die. i think people should believe what they want... if they want to get together fine... but i think it causes unnecessary friction on earth. if there is some afterlife... worry about it then. right now we have this life... and we all need to get together to make it better... not worse.

i choose to focus on secular things... there may be a god, there may not... but i'm not gonna say he she it is on my side, nor am i gonna say there is one.... nor am i gonna say there's not one. it's irrelevant to me. and i tend not to trust News/opinion publications that have a particular sway. You might choose otherwise.

[SirSmellyEwic]

^ don't answer that. please keep your rants off my thread. thank you.

ah and here is assumption. these are not rants. i just type fast, lol. and have more than a couple connected thoughts on particular issues. i like to be thorough.