B
Blue Dot
Like the prison unions??
You do realize how much they pay in lobbying don't you?
How much do the people pay?
Follow the money and you'll find the rats nest.
Schwarzenegger: Calif. Should Study Pot Laws
- Thread starter FreedomFGHTR
- Start date
Like the prison unions??
You do realize how much they pay in lobbying don't you?
How much do the people pay?
Follow the money and you'll find the rats nest.
roughnice420
Active member
lol. that made me laugh. shawshank was such an epic movie.
B
Blue
Hey man Tookie was no angel & by right served the punishment for the crimes he did, but & here is the big but he was no danger to anyone any more & could have done more good out of prison then in it!!!
Cali have huge problems where public money comes into play they cant tax folks any more money so its the ONLY logical step to generate funds having been in cali last year & talking to my friends its totaly stupid that it has taken untill now for them to come out and say well yeah we could make it legal & make a butt load of cash from it rather then it going to gangs.
but I'm sure there are lobby groups out there right now stuffing bills into packets to hand off to some one somewhere to make sure nothing happens..
still we can dream
Cali have huge problems where public money comes into play they cant tax folks any more money so its the ONLY logical step to generate funds having been in cali last year & talking to my friends its totaly stupid that it has taken untill now for them to come out and say well yeah we could make it legal & make a butt load of cash from it rather then it going to gangs.
but I'm sure there are lobby groups out there right now stuffing bills into packets to hand off to some one somewhere to make sure nothing happens..
still we can dream
Why do you want to support organized criminal gangs? Decrim is absolutely the worst of both worlds from a macro point of view. Frankly, I'd rather it stay illegal than be decrim'd. If we can deal with alcohol being legal we can deal with any other substance as well. Alcohol is the most addictive and physically destructive recreational drug available. Cannabis dangers don't even hold a candle to those of alcohol. Perhaps you're under the mistaken impression that legalization has to include the ability of someone to set up a cannabis stand outside a high school and sell it to anyone?
in what movie
in what movie
^^^ In which movie is now? He does have a cobra look to him.
LOL
in what movie
^^^ In which movie is now? He does have a cobra look to him.
LOL
J
Jeff Lebowski
He will be out after 2010 so I don't expect action on this issue this year. Next year however, AB 390 will be up again for debate, hopefully with some co-sponsors and Arnold will be nearing his political expiration. I see no reason why he couldn't flip switch for legacy sake, I mean he loves attention and this would stroke his ego in such a way that not even I can fathom it. Who knows, like I said, nothing will happen this year but his opinion is out there and he isn't going anywhere.
J
JackTheGrower
I am confused..
Arnold isn't the Legalization movement.
That he spoke openly about it redeems, him in my eyes, on this issue.
Remember he has been an anti-legalization guy.
I guess being a Lame Duck with a faltering economy is good for honesty on this issue.
Jack
Euphrates
Member
So by supporting decriminalization, I support organized crime.. o.k. Yet you claim you would rather have it remain illegal than be decriminalized.. Who's point of view is more in support of organized crime ?
I guess its what your definition of "legal" is, and "decriminalized" is.
Different states have different terms for decriminalization, The version of decriminalization that I am proposing is to remove all legal penalties for possessing, growing, an buying seeds.
Yes if it where decriminalized, there might still be a black market for cannabis, but it would be ever so dwindling and soon to die out, Growing cannabis isn't hard, if you can grow tomatoes, you can grow cannabis.
"Alcohol is the most addictive and physically destructive recreational drug available"
I agree.
I don't believe though that cannabis should be put in the same category as alcohol and tobacco, why have it overly taxed and processed by a commercial and state controlled facility, by adding regulations, and putting additives and God knows what else in the herb? Cannabis should be a free plant, like any other legal plant, tomatoes for example.
Buy having it legal and having the American government collecting taxes that are bound to be raised often just like tobacco often is, then legalization allows the government to control a large part of the cannabis market. You go from supporting one organized criminal entity to supporting another. My suggestion, fu*k the criminal organizations making money off cannabis, and grow your own.
I am personally in favor for decrim and mmj, that doesn't mean I am totally against legalization at all.
AB390 Legalization bill in California would have allowed people to grow their own cannabis for non sale if it was under 10 plants. No legal limits on amount, just plant count.
Alcohol legalization allows for people to make their own beer, yet it does not allow them to sell it.
To sum it up, I want cannabis to be free, and not become a harlot of the U.S. Again it all depends on what your definition of what’s “legal”, and what’s “decriminalized”.
Koroz
Member
Euphrates said:
you can't grow tomatoes and sell them with out paying tax.
you can't buy tomatoes, even at a farmers market with out paying taxes unless you do so illegally (although, because tomatoes are not an "illegal" substance people look past this).
So bad analogy. Tomatoes aren't a "free plant" either. And under at least AB390, in California you wouldn't be taxed on personal consumption of Cannabis, as long as you grow your own (under 10 plants) and don't sell it to other people. You can also brew your own beer and not be taxed. I don't understand why people think you can "sell" tomatoes for a profit with out being taxed, if you were to ever get audited by the Government you would still be breaking the law by doing so.
But thats a perfect analogy, because they want to add additional taxes than what would already be required by law if there were no criminal provisions against cannabis.
Cali Gov says its time to debate Weed!
Cali Gov says its time to debate Weed!
Swarzenegger[sp] says he is basically against legalization even though he has a history of toking....but he thinks the tax revenues might be nice.
So he is opening it up for debate and see if it can raise revenue,,,,
GO ARNOLD!!!!! GIT R DONE!!!!!!
Cali Gov says its time to debate Weed!
Swarzenegger[sp] says he is basically against legalization even though he has a history of toking....but he thinks the tax revenues might be nice.
So he is opening it up for debate and see if it can raise revenue,,,,
GO ARNOLD!!!!! GIT R DONE!!!!!!
SkareCrow
Member
I am happy for anybody who gets it legalized as it could start a trend. Do you think that Florida or any other state is gonna let Cali make all that tax money and not get a piece of that pie. Same with gambling. When one state started making money the others jumped on the bandwagon. And I never thought I would see gambling in the Moral Majority South.
But casinos in Mississipi now and legal weed soon I hope. I am an old lady and this is truly progress and hope.
But casinos in Mississipi now and legal weed soon I hope. I am an old lady and this is truly progress and hope.
Koroz
Member
Although I agree additional taxes is bad, I will say again it was a bad analogy because he was saying you can produce and sell tomatoes tax free, which isn't true. Tomatoes aren't a "free plant".
So no, the analogy doesn't work, regardless to the point of additional taxes or not. But as I said in the other post on this topic, if the choice for me is I can grow my own 10 plants for personal consumption and not get fined, go to jail or have to lie about an ailment to get a med card, and in turn those who produce it for an income have to pay taxes+extra I would still back it.
I am not afraid to say that I am not really worried about those people who are selling it illegally, or if they wouldn't be able to sustain a tax free income after legalization were to happen. There will be a black market still for Cannabis after, just as there is in certain states for black market alcohol products. The difference would be is that now I won't lose my children, my house, my job, and get fined for smoking a personal stash of ganja.
But that is a whole other conversation.
So no, the analogy doesn't work, regardless to the point of additional taxes or not. But as I said in the other post on this topic, if the choice for me is I can grow my own 10 plants for personal consumption and not get fined, go to jail or have to lie about an ailment to get a med card, and in turn those who produce it for an income have to pay taxes+extra I would still back it.
I am not afraid to say that I am not really worried about those people who are selling it illegally, or if they wouldn't be able to sustain a tax free income after legalization were to happen. There will be a black market still for Cannabis after, just as there is in certain states for black market alcohol products. The difference would be is that now I won't lose my children, my house, my job, and get fined for smoking a personal stash of ganja.
But that is a whole other conversation.
hydromaddicted
Member
here's what he actually said
As California struggles to find cash, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday it's time to study whether to legalize and tax marijuana for recreational use.
The Republican governor did not support legalization – and the federal government still bans marijuana use – but advocates hailed the fact that Schwarzenegger endorsed studying a once-taboo political subject.
"Well, I think it's not time for (legalization), but I think it's time for a debate," Schwarzenegger said. "I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues, I'm always for an open debate on it. And I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect did it have on those countries?"
Schwarzenegger was at a fire safety event in Davis when he answered a question about a recent Field Poll showing 56 percent of registered voters support legalizing and taxing marijuana to raise revenue for cash-strapped California. Voters in 1996 authorized marijuana for medical purposes.
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has written legislation to allow the legal sale of marijuana to adults 21 years and older for recreational use. His Assembly Bill 390 would charge cannabis wholesalers initial and annual flat fees, while retailers would pay $50 per ounce to the state.
The proposal would ban cannabis near schools and prohibit smoking marijuana in public places.
Marijuana legalization would raise an estimated $1.34 billion annually in tax revenue, according to a February estimate by the Board of Equalization. That amount could be offset by a reduction in cigarette or alcohol sales if consumers use marijuana as a substitute.
Besides raising additional tax revenue, the state could save money on law enforcement costs, Ammiano believes. But he shelved the bill until next year because it remains controversial in the Capitol, according to his spokesman, Quintin Mecke.
"We're certainly in full agreement with the governor," Mecke said. "I think it's a great opportunity. I think he's also being very realistic about understanding sort of the overall context, not only economically but otherwise."
Schwarzenegger previously has shown a casual attitude toward marijuana. He was filmed smoking a joint in the 1977 film, "Pumping Iron." And he told the British version of GQ in 2007, "That is not a drug. It's a leaf." Spokesman Aaron McLear downplayed the governor's comment as a joke at the time.
Even if California were to legalize marijuana, the state would hit a roadblock with the federal government, which prohibits its use. Ammiano hopes for a shift in federal policy, but President Barack Obama said in March he doesn't think legalization is a good strategy.
Any study would find plenty of arguments, judging by responses Tuesday.
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, said he's open to a study, but he remains opposed to legalization. He warned that society could bear significant burdens. He downplayed enforcement and incarceration savings because he believes drug courts are already effective in removing low-level offenders from the system.
"Studies have shown there is impairment with marijuana use," DeVore said. "People can get paranoid, can lose some of their initiative to work, and we don't live in some idealized libertarian society where every person is responsible completely to himself. We live in a society where the cost of your poor decisions are borne by your fellow taxpayers."
But Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project said studies show alcohol has worse effects on users than marijuana in terms of addiction and long-term effects. His group believes marijuana should be regulated and taxed just like alcoholic beverages.
"There are reams of scientific data that show marijuana is less harmful than alcohol," Mirken said. "Just look at the brain of an alcoholic. In an autopsy, you wouldn't need a microscope to see the damage. Marijuana doesn't do anything like that."
Schwarzenegger said he would like to see results from Europe as part of a study.
The Austrian parliament last year authorized cultivation of medical marijuana. But Schwarzenegger talked with a police officer in his hometown of Graz and found the liberalization was not fully supported, McLear said.
"It could very well be that everyone is happy with that decision and then we could move to that," Schwarzenegger said. "If not, we shouldn't do it. But just because of raising revenues … we have to be careful not to make mistakes at the same time."
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1837124.html
As California struggles to find cash, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday it's time to study whether to legalize and tax marijuana for recreational use.
The Republican governor did not support legalization – and the federal government still bans marijuana use – but advocates hailed the fact that Schwarzenegger endorsed studying a once-taboo political subject.
"Well, I think it's not time for (legalization), but I think it's time for a debate," Schwarzenegger said. "I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues, I'm always for an open debate on it. And I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect did it have on those countries?"
Schwarzenegger was at a fire safety event in Davis when he answered a question about a recent Field Poll showing 56 percent of registered voters support legalizing and taxing marijuana to raise revenue for cash-strapped California. Voters in 1996 authorized marijuana for medical purposes.
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has written legislation to allow the legal sale of marijuana to adults 21 years and older for recreational use. His Assembly Bill 390 would charge cannabis wholesalers initial and annual flat fees, while retailers would pay $50 per ounce to the state.
The proposal would ban cannabis near schools and prohibit smoking marijuana in public places.
Marijuana legalization would raise an estimated $1.34 billion annually in tax revenue, according to a February estimate by the Board of Equalization. That amount could be offset by a reduction in cigarette or alcohol sales if consumers use marijuana as a substitute.
Besides raising additional tax revenue, the state could save money on law enforcement costs, Ammiano believes. But he shelved the bill until next year because it remains controversial in the Capitol, according to his spokesman, Quintin Mecke.
"We're certainly in full agreement with the governor," Mecke said. "I think it's a great opportunity. I think he's also being very realistic about understanding sort of the overall context, not only economically but otherwise."
Schwarzenegger previously has shown a casual attitude toward marijuana. He was filmed smoking a joint in the 1977 film, "Pumping Iron." And he told the British version of GQ in 2007, "That is not a drug. It's a leaf." Spokesman Aaron McLear downplayed the governor's comment as a joke at the time.
Even if California were to legalize marijuana, the state would hit a roadblock with the federal government, which prohibits its use. Ammiano hopes for a shift in federal policy, but President Barack Obama said in March he doesn't think legalization is a good strategy.
Any study would find plenty of arguments, judging by responses Tuesday.
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, said he's open to a study, but he remains opposed to legalization. He warned that society could bear significant burdens. He downplayed enforcement and incarceration savings because he believes drug courts are already effective in removing low-level offenders from the system.
"Studies have shown there is impairment with marijuana use," DeVore said. "People can get paranoid, can lose some of their initiative to work, and we don't live in some idealized libertarian society where every person is responsible completely to himself. We live in a society where the cost of your poor decisions are borne by your fellow taxpayers."
But Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project said studies show alcohol has worse effects on users than marijuana in terms of addiction and long-term effects. His group believes marijuana should be regulated and taxed just like alcoholic beverages.
"There are reams of scientific data that show marijuana is less harmful than alcohol," Mirken said. "Just look at the brain of an alcoholic. In an autopsy, you wouldn't need a microscope to see the damage. Marijuana doesn't do anything like that."
Schwarzenegger said he would like to see results from Europe as part of a study.
The Austrian parliament last year authorized cultivation of medical marijuana. But Schwarzenegger talked with a police officer in his hometown of Graz and found the liberalization was not fully supported, McLear said.
"It could very well be that everyone is happy with that decision and then we could move to that," Schwarzenegger said. "If not, we shouldn't do it. But just because of raising revenues … we have to be careful not to make mistakes at the same time."
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1837124.html
southpaw
Member
Ten plants for personal use without fear of conviction would be fine by me. I'm not interested in worrying how about someone's "for profit" scheme would warp the legislation. Let's cross that bridge when we get there.
When I grow tomatoes on my balcony and give them to friends, I don't tax them for the pleasure. $2.50 for starters, pennies from seed, a few bucks per container for soil and ferts. Not "free", but damned close. Doing this with herb would be progress.
Koroz
Member
That was exactly my point. Taking donations for costs on small amounts, and having my own legal supply would be all I need. Sounds perfect to me. I am not one to care about those who just want a tax free income. +rep
