Projected marijuana tax revenues (CNN)

[debo0775]

Originally Posted by WES445

where were you when I was a smoker?

lol...internetz man. They're a wonderful thing.


Back on topic - I'd be curious to see what the net gain/loss in revenue is if marijuana is legalized/decriminalized nationwide. I'd imagine that there would be a gain given that law enforcement would focus less on marijuana and a tax could (see: would) be set high enough to ensure at least a break-even level of revenue.

[IndyFan]

saw this, thought it might be interesting.

911 call to report stolen pot

[GGGGG-Men]

I think the important word missing here is regulation. Alcohol is far more dangerous and, without a doubt, a legalization of marijuana would be strictly regulated just like alcohol or tobacco.

If we can legalize and regulate firearms, alcohol, motor vehicles.....I think we can do this as well.

Alcohol poisoning, drunk drivers, etc. and booze is still legal. Marijuana is one of the few drugs you CAN'T overdose on as it doesn't kill your involuntary functions. It's barely addictive (surely not as much as alcohol).

The problem is, in our free market society, EVERY store will demand to carry it and EVERY person will demand to use it.

Amsterdam has done a fine job with regulating it.

[dbroncos78087]

I imagine the regulation of marijuana would be a mix of different regulations.

A little bit of alcohol regulation: Cannot be used under any circumstance before driving
A little bit of cigarette regulation: Must be 18 to buy it and no buying it for minors

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

I imagine the regulation of marijuana would be a mix of different regulations.

A little bit of alcohol regulation: Cannot be used under any circumstance before driving
A little bit of cigarette regulation: Must be 18 to buy it and no buying it for minors

wonder how this one could be regulated? isn't marijuana persistent?

get high, stop driving for two weeks or a month? either that or drive very safely, knowing you would fail the test.

[dbroncos78087]

Originally Posted by IndyFan

wonder how this one could be regulated? isn't marijuana persistent?

get high, stop driving for two weeks or a month? either that or drive very safely, knowing you would fail the test.

No idea, but if it were to be legalized you cant just let people drive while or after using it. I dont know the latency period that it affects you. But i imagine that scientists could determine it and some sort of test which gives the equivalent of BAC.

[Randy West]

They have a pupil test they do with a flashlight that is a dead ringer on if you are stoned or not. Also some of the stuff you do for roadside DUI testing could be failed if under the influence of pot or other substances.

You can get a DUI for pot in California of course you would pass a BAC test with a breathalyzer but not some of the other tests.

But back to the topic

I am almost positive the revenue from the taxes would be more than it is now for pot.

[DodgersFan28]

Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men

Alcohol is far more dangerous and, without a doubt, a legalization of marijuana would be strictly regulated just like alcohol or tobacco.

Because alcohol/tobacco regulation works super well, especially on college campuses.

Originally Posted by Randy West

I am almost positive the revenue from the taxes would be more than it is now for pot.

I'd rather tax the crap out of soda than make pot legal, but that's me. I guess I just have far different priorities when it comes to personal health, and societal health.

[philab]

Originally Posted by SmthBluCitrus

Wait ... how is that a weak counter? Gangs still operating even though an income source has been legalized is pretty damned relevant, all things considered. It's just another in a long line of pro-legalization arguments that make no sense to me.

And, I don't think organized crime is a good example for the pro- side at all. Even after prohibition was lifted, they still continued to thrive. So, if you want to use organized crime as an example ... great, we eliminate one motivation for them to operate and open the door for a dozen different others; extortion, protection, murder-for-hire ... need I continue? If one avenue of income is removed, they're going to seek out something else.

It's not dismissive; it's realistic. Every day people break into other people's homes ... eh, it happens, we can't stop it -- let's legalize it! Everybody drives over the speed limit anyway ... take away speed limits!

This is the same type of argument you accuse legalization advocates of making. Yes, if marijuana were legalized gangs would move on to other illicit activities. Putting aside the argument that ALL drugs should be made legal, the question still remains -- why give gangs MORE power? Just because there are other illegal activities for gangs to profit on doesn't mean everything should be illegal.

And yes, every day people break into others' homes. Using the logic I attacked above, your argument would be, "Every day people break into others' homes; guess there's no need to lock the doors tonight." In fact, locking doors deters some, many, whatever would-be criminals and reduces their ability to commit crimes (whether in that particular house or in others based on a diminished efficiency).

Organized crime is documented to have taken a huge hit after Prohibition was lifted. It would likewise take a hit if prohibition on marijuana were lifted and perhaps a near death blow if all drugs were legalized. Obviously if everything were made legal, there would be no organized crime (and clearly that's a silly justification). The line has to be drawn somewhere and the argument that that line is on the other side of marijuana (or perhaps all drugs) is a strong one -- and one not affected in the slightest by your argument above.

Oh, I absolutely understand the ease of access; but legalizing would make it easier still. But, like gcoll said, there's a social stigma that goes along with it being illegal. That's a deterrent, in itself, to a number of people.

I'm not sure access would be easier to all, but I'll concede the point here. There would, however, be age limitations and regulations that do not exist currently. Whether age limitations do more good than harm is debatable, but clearly the "ease of access" argument runs into an obstacle there (especially considering your apparent focus on HS-age kids using drugs). Also, dosage and potency regulations/taxes would likely be implemented -- certainly an advantage of drug legalization (although perhaps irrelevant to marijuana legalization).

And do not make the mistake of assuming any social stigma is lifted upon legalization. Alcohol still has a huge social stigma and that stigma for alcoholics (real alcoholics, not the "five drinks twice a month" crap) is greater than potheads and approaches that of habitual abusers of other drugs. The stigma attached to those other drugs would certainly remain upon legalization.

Okay, sure ... but answer me this. Are these massive marijuana farms going to pop up all over the place to meet the demand for sales of marijuana OR is it more likely that people are going to engage in own-grow?

If own-grow is the case ... where the hell is this revenue going to come from? And, if Joe Blow sells to Sally Smith down the street -- is he going to actually collect taxes from her?

"Okay ... that's $10; and with the 7% sales tax that comes to be ..."

That seems unrealistic to me.

Self-grown marijuana having anything greater than a negligible effect on the overall market is near impossible. First, cultivating marijuana for effective use is more difficult than one might imagine. Second, even if easy, we all know that people lack the sort of patience and dedication necessary. Home-brewing beer is legal, but it certainly hasn't curbed alcohol sales. Growing marijuana in small amounts now is likely preferable to buying it, but very few do it (and those who do still buy it). Finding seeds is also a bit of a problem with good weed. The government (or licensed stores) could sell seeds and profit there if this was really a concern.

Your argument also tends to assume that all users are potheads. Many don't have the need for pot on-hand at all times or large quantities at cheap costs. Like alcohol, many use (or would use) sparingly -- on weekends, monthly, or even less frequently. Weed cannot be bought in single or several "dose" quantities right now. Thus, those who would like to use sparingly are forced to scavenge or buy in excess (which often leads to increased use).

If someone were to start a large grow operation and sell underneath government regulations, they'd risk prosecution for very little profit. Obviously some do that now, but finding customers concerned with such minimal savings and increases in potency would likely be very difficult.

The "homegrown" argument is inapplicable to any other drugs, so no need to go there.

What we have to address is not the problem itself, but the reason for the problem. Why do these kids turn to dealing drugs? Typically, it's because they're wrapped in a continuous cycle of chronic poverty and it's an easy (albeit dangerous) way to earn a living.

I wholeheartedly agree here as far as gangs go. Why, however, can't we extend that logic to drug USE? We should focus more on attacking the DEMAND for drugs. Drug education and rehabilitation programs deserve much more funds than they currently receive (not to mention a revamp of drug education philosophy). Legalizing marijuana would almost certainly create revenue for the federal government -- from both sales and reduced enforcement and punishment costs. If that revenue were applied accordingly (and if we have any faith in the value of education), the drug problem in America might begin to wane significantly.




On a side note, sorry for "attacking" only you in this thread. You seem very reasonable, logical, and open for serious discussions and thus I thought you might be interested in the other side (or perhaps I just wanted to give that side ). We went through this argument in General Discussions once and the anti-legalization side was filled with imbeciles (merely coincidental), so I was intrigued by someone such as yourself arguing that side. And sorry for the length here too.

[SmthBluCitrus]

Originally Posted by philab

On a side note, sorry for "attacking" only you in this thread. You seem very reasonable, logical, and open for serious discussions and thus I thought you might be interested in the other side (or perhaps I just wanted to give that side ). We went through this argument in General Discussions once and the anti-legalization side was filled with imbeciles (merely coincidental), so I was intrigued by someone such as yourself arguing that side. And sorry for the length here too.

No worries. I hope you don't mind but I'll try and plan on getting back to you tonight or tomorrow (more than likely tomorrow) ... I'm actually getting ready to leave for the day. I just didn't want to leave you hanging if you were expecting a response sooner than later.

[philab]

Originally Posted by SmthBluCitrus

No worries. I hope you don't mind but I'll try and plan on getting back to you tonight or tomorrow (more than likely tomorrow) ... I'm actually getting ready to leave for the day. I just didn't want to leave you hanging if you were expecting a response sooner than later.

No problem. Don't feel obligated to reply either (although I'm sure the debater in you wants to) -- I may just be an idiot spouting off bad ideas that needs no reply .

[Raider_Vet]

The pot war is bull ****! IMO it's my god given right to smoke it in my home or at a club. Potheads are not violent unlike some alcoholics and other drug users. I could give a **** if someone does not buy into the theory "alcohol and cigs are legal why not pot"? It is as harmful as those 2 drugs and less harmful IMO. If were going to keep pot illegal then we need to make alcohol and ciggs illegal. Yes I know this is the typical pothead party line but it needed to be said on this forum IMO. Enough is enough. For the love of god let people smoke it legally. And yes I freely admitt I smoke and I enjoy it. Anyone who condems me for doing so can kiss my ***. Also it is just ignorant to suggest that Pot is harmful to the effect of these drugs or even close to them. Also very stupid to even mention pot in the same breath as meth! I also know many people from all walks of life (teachers, lawyers, doctors, city officisls, cops... and yes I have known people personaly from these professions who do smoke it to this day). Here are a few notable that have puffed and I am willing to bet many still do..... Also Yes I know this thread is supposed to be about the tax revenue it can bring but after reading some of the very stupid misinformation of the so called health risks, and how it will create more smokers and make it more easy for children to get I felt this needed to be said.

[Raider_Vet]

Originally Posted by BroadwayJoe

touche!

i think there will always be a niche for black market sale of pot, even if it becomes legal. be it for lower costs or any other reason, that market will always exist. but i also think enough people will be compelled to purchase it legally and remove the risk (in this case, getting ripped off, jacked or worse from illegal dealers, rather than possession as in the past). professionals who smoke now will be legally able to purchase and smoke without fear or consequence. not to mention, someone passing through a random town or city where they don't know any dealers would be compelled to purchase from one of those outlets.

like i said, there will never be an effective way to completely remove underground distribution of pot... but there are ways to limit it AND make a profit off of it at the same time. surely, the cost of that is worth the regulation and taxation of the product by the gov, rather than continuing to pour that money down the endless abyss that is the current american war on drugs.

Just for the record the price for pot in California pot shops are the same as the street prices and in some cases even more. Wise words from a fellow pot smoker..... give them hell joe and continue your rational thoughts to show them that pot smokers in general are good and intelligent people who live everyday lives and are responsible users just like people who enjoy a alcoholic drink every now and then.

[DodgersFan28]

Originally Posted by Raider Vet

pot smokers in general are good and intelligent people

Wow.

[Drucifer]

Originally Posted by FOBolous

so what will be the cost on society of marijuana is legalized? what are the drawbacks?

More will experiment with it and some of those will get hooked and become useless to society. My guess, these individuals will always get hooked on something or other anyway.

There would also have to be a ton of new regulations in each state. Like smoking anything in a car may become illegal.