Did you get your accounts mixed up? You "both" seem to miss my point. If you want to legalize pot, base it off of personal rights, not taxation. Criminal rganizations will ALWAYS exist. Its not like they have some mar1juana or crack fetish. If you take away one product, they will find a new product. Perhaps we should legalize everything so criminal organizations will cease to exist.
I do base my support for regulating recreational pharmaceuticals on personal rights, but that doesn't take away all of the other great reasons for regulation. One of the major reasons is to reap the tax benefits from substances for which there is a major demand, and one of the other big benefits is removing a major source of funding from criminal organizations. I could make a strong argument for regulating just about anything that you might describe as a "victimless" crime, and only one of the reasons would be to take the funding source from criminal organizations.
Yes, because if the state of California would legalize mar1juana, I'm sure they would say "we are only doing this for epic tax lolz.". You're trying to argue this topic in isolation, which makes sense in Clutchfans I guess, but is foolhardy and a waste of time in the real world...but ah well, we'll stick to your line. That said, refer to my post above, in trying to keep to your isolated argument...legalizing mar1juana for tax also carries the implicit notion that the gouvernment is reducing spending on running after mar1juana plants and freeing up people stuck in the judicial system for simple possession charges, saving money and space. In fact, judging by the federal application, it would appear that more money could be saved from LESS gouvernment spending then generated from taxes...I don't understand why you can be against this UNLESS you are personally against mar1juana...which ruins the point of arguing the topic in isolation.
You're absolutely right. The article is specifically talking about the taxation of mar1juana, not the other issues regarding at mar1juana. But you are correct, what "makes sense in Clutchfans" is typical topic derailment. There are many other threads discussing pro's and con's of illegal drugs. This one is specifically directed at Cali taxing mar1juana. My bad for staying on topic. "lolz".
How is it topic derailment to discuss other aspects of the same subject? But I digress, as I said, I will try to keep to your line. In keeping on topic though, you do realize the implicit flip side of taxation in legalization is that the gouvernment will save money ceasing to control what was previously illegal? Or is that too "off-topic" for you considering it was not mentioned in the article.
And about 1 in 8 prisoners are in jail (at government expense) for pot-related charges... (stat from 2006, various articles)
Weed being legal is a separate issue. Legalizing just to raise taxes is a bad thing. There are serious problems with Cali's budget. What will they tax next year, when the deficit grows even bigger (it will)?
I agree with this, governments should practice fiscal discipline rather than create an additional dependency on any particular industry. Although I think if there's increased economic activity with limited social costs, I'm comfortable with legalizing certain things like gambling.
IMO, we shouldn't regulate "just to raise taxes," there are a host of other reasons to regulate the industry, but taxes are one of the biggest and best reasons.
Who is going to pay for the 2 billion + each year for meth, coke, and heroin rehab after all the new potheads escalate to stronger drugs ?
The entire $50 per ounce is supposed to go to programs such as rehab, the tax on that 50 bucks is what we're discussing here.
Painkillers are legalized, but nobody talks about the $2 billion to spent each year for meth, coke and heroin rehab, when they escalate to stronger drugs.
Hell, who is going to pay for pothead rehab when they get hooked on modern super dope ? Green crack...
First off, the "gateway theory" is a myth, it has been more than proven and I am happy to send you links if you need them. Second, any rehab would be fully paid for by taxes on the drugs themselves, so the people who consume drugs would ultimately pay for addiction treatment.
I think the tax revenue should go to schools, like the lotto. If you get addicted, pay for treatment yourself!
Another common myth these days is dangerous "super pot," specifically the myth holds that high THC content mar1juana is somehow more dangerous than any other mar1juana. There is no lethal dose of THC, you could continually vaporize "super pot" into a gas mask 24/7 and never overdose (they tried it on mice and none of them died).
The gateway drug story is just a talking point for anti-drug commercials. Furthermore, the whole theoretical basis of the gateway drug story is that the guy who's selling you weed, also sells harder stuff and since you keep buying from that guy eventually you'll start buying harder drugs off of him. Legalization effectively takes pot out of the hands of dealers, divorcing pot users from dealers of harder substances. If anything, legalization would solve the supposed "gateway" drug problem.
The people who get addicted will pay for their own treatment with the taxes they pay. Tax receipts will FAR outstrip treatment costs since only a miniscule percentage (1.3%) of people ever gets truly "addicted." So, the taxes could easily pay for both addiction treatment and could help education. Personally, I would send that money to pay for necessary medications for the elderly, but that is just my opinion.
I read somewhere that the lottery revenue is still an almost irrelevant amount in terms of boosting the education funding.
Just googled it, and you're right. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92595&page=1 The lottery money does go to the intended cause. However, instead of adding to the funds for those programs, legislators factor in the lottery revenue and allocate less government money to the program budgets, says one lottery critic, Patrick Pierce, a political scientist at St. Mary's College in Indiana, who has analyzed the impact of lotteries. So it sounds to me that California will just waste the money...
