Some Illinois Citizens Debate Legalizing Sale of Marijuana

Illinois Citizens Debate Legalizing Sale of MJ
August 27, 2007 at 07:11:32 PT
By Krisi Kawanna
Source: Daily Vidette

Illinois -- When one thinks of cash crops in Illinois, marijuana is generally not a plant that comes to mind. However, marijuana is now the state's third ranked money crop.

According to a report published in the Bulletin for Cannabis Reform December 2006 by Dr. Jon Gettman, a regional economics expert and adjunct instructor at Shepard University, Illinois' marijuana crop was valued at more than $272 million.

Corn was valued at $4 billion and soybeans at $2.7 billion.

"Despite intensive eradication efforts, domestic marijuana production has increased ten fold over the last 25 years, from 2.2 million pounds in 1981 to 22 million pounds in 2006," Gettman said.

"Its proliferation to every part of the country demonstrates that marijuana has become a pervasive and ineradicable part of the national economy," Gettman added.

Because of the economic value marijuana possesses, some believe that the crop should become a legal, controlled crop in Illinois.

"We think that marijuana should be regulated as a legal controlled crop. We see Illinois in a budget crisis right now, and revenue from the marijuana crop could help with this," Bryan Brickner, a chairperson of Illinois NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), said.

Some citizens have noticed the economic value marijuana possesses and have taken measures in their own hands to benefit from the revenue.

"Two years ago in Oakland, California, Measure Seven was passed by the citizens. These people wanted marijuana to be sold and taxed in their city in order for the revenue from the sales to go towards their local schools. The citizens have spoken," Brickner said.

"We are the only group of Americans saying please tax us! There are so many problems, such as lack of funding for schools, that could be helped with revenue from marijuana" Brickner added.

While some like Gettman and Brickner believe that making marijuana a controlled, specialty crop would help Illinois' economy greatly, others disagree.

"The extent to which the state's economy benefits from such a change would depend, in part, on the extent to which the crop is exported to other states. If it was all sold within the state, it would simply act as a transfer of revenue from one sector, e.g., alcohol, to another and the impact would likely be minimal," Jeffrey Carlson, an associate economics professor, said.

"Of course one would also have to factor in the likely adverse affects of increased usage of marijuana on worker productivity. Finally, considering the impact of agriculture as a whole in Illinois, the overall impact would likely be very small," Carlson added.

420patient.com said:

...While some like Gettman and Brickner believe that making marijuana a controlled, specialty crop would help Illinois' economy greatly, others disagree.

"The extent to which the state's economy benefits from such a change would depend, in part, on the extent to which the crop is exported to other states. If it was all sold within the state, it would simply act as a transfer of revenue from one sector, e.g., alcohol, to another and the impact would likely be minimal," Jeffrey Carlson, an associate economics professor, said.

Click to expand...

wow what a genius...as if people buy pot OR alcohol exclusively...seems like this guy doesn't understand that fact that its going on anyway and the state is missing out on easy money...

"Of course one would also have to factor in the likely adverse affects of increased usage of marijuana on worker productivity. Finally, considering the impact of agriculture as a whole in Illinois, the overall impact would likely be very small," Carlson added.

Click to expand...

wow another brilliant comment, if the impact on worker productivity of pot vs alcohol is a main issue regarding the legalization of pot then alcohol is going to get its ass beaten into a pulp in that competition...gee i wonder who is gonna be better in the office, the dude who drank 15 beers last night and reeks as he sweats it out or the dude who got 8 hours of sleep and took a bonghit before coming into work..

whenever i read these things i feel like i'm reading some super-old periodical on microfiche and its filled with 'scientific' stories about the cognitive shortcomings of negroes vis-a-vis whatever bullshit theory they felt like throwing out at the time...also i think 20 or 30 million dollars in tax revenue is never anything to be sniffed at, just cause they grow way more corn and beans doesn't mean other crops aren't significant...

^^^especially as an industrial powerhouse material...

Agree absolutely, Nug, I don't drink but know plenty that do both. Never would I imagine any of these good folks switching to one or the other.

As for worker productivity - I have gotten well ripped and gone to work the next day sans hangover...much unlike co-workers who were out drinking. As a business owner, I'd much rather hire a stoner than an alcoholic! It's the old propaganda and stereotypes coming back to haunt us.

I also have a problem with the idea that revenue would be minimized by export to other states. Point of sale taxation wouldn't be influenced no matter where the weed came from. Who knows - might just turn out that Illinois grows superior weed and demand for "Illinois grown" will raise even more revenue.

And an overall "small" impact on agriculture? How many acres are currently designated as "set aside" lands? If only that land were used to grow, the benefit to farmers and agriculture could be huge! Illinois has the country's third largest number of prime agricultural acres, and yet we are paying the farmers NOT to grow crops.

We already know there is a market for cannabis. We know there is land available. A "new" crop on even just currently unused land, even marginal land, would seem to hold potential for greatly increased state revenues.

So here's a question that is slightly off topic but it relates back to the thread if you think about it, is the fiber quality of hemp strain superior to that of drug strains, or is it just a matter of fiber yeild acre?

I don't know for sure, but think the industrial variety is bred for fiber production. And they don't care male or female...

Which begs the question:
Another aside to the thread, Could growing industrial hemp risk other local outdoor connoisseur grows with cross pollination? Might force a lot indoors!

Don't know about quality, but industrial hemp is way more efficient than trees when it comes to paper. Really, legalizing weed would create two economies- one supporting the smoked form, and one supporting textiles.

Shit, California's making a killing just by taxing medicinal pot. I don't think you'd be hearing any state politicians bitching once they figure out the herb has the power to line their pockets nicely and boost the budget.

hey BD i totally agree, if farmers could rotate pot in every 3rd or 4th year the soil would improve...also if they could grow pot then we could stop these stupid ass subsidies for not growing on land...

the hemp (ruderalis) type strains are superior just cause they're bigger and there is more of the stalk i think...when u think about all the shit that would benefit, especially trees, its way obvious to me that its established corporate interests who are the only ones whose best interest it is in to keep weed/hemp illegal...

I guess what I can't understand is why the paper and textile industries don't get behind cannabis production. We know hemp makes better paper, better cloth, saves trees, reduces pesticide use, improves cropland, etc. etc. etc. So why wouldn't these corporations WANT to improve their product by switching to a new source material?

I can certainly understand why the pharmaceutical industry is against it - but I just don't get why the others are sticking with trees and cotton.

BirdDawg said:

I guess what I can't understand is why the paper and textile industries don't get behind cannabis production. We know hemp makes better paper, better cloth, saves trees, reduces pesticide use, improves cropland, etc. etc. etc. So why wouldn't these corporations WANT to improve their product by switching to a new source material?

I can certainly understand why the pharmaceutical industry is against it - but I just don't get why the others are sticking with trees and cotton.

Click to expand...

Because they would have to invest money in the building of facilities to process the new source material. If they don't jump on the band wagon and build these facilities, others will. Their current products will lose value as a cheaper alternative comes to market causing them to lose money.

All these shortsighted companies only see the short term expense and possible long term loss and get scared. So they rally the wagons around each other and demonize that which would put them out of business.

And as long as the corporations run our country via political donations, they will continue to get their way.

Cheers!
Hempy

What no economist has yet hit on, is the impact of legaliation on the small family farm. Many of these have been lost in my lifetime, the costs to run a current farm are quite high. Adding this simple small time cash crop could make small farms viable, allow them to keep going in the lean years, or buy equipment they need to succeed. A farm that just barely breaks even now, could turn enough profit through herb or hemp to make it and grow stronger.

The pendulum has begun to swing back from the right edge in our political cycle, and the republickers have exposed themselves as enemies of the American people. It is time to make the changes to these and other laws. It is time to stand, time to speak out, time to VOTE!

Weed is for voters!
H

BirdDawg said:

I guess what I can't understand is why the paper and textile industries don't get behind cannabis production. We know hemp makes better paper, better cloth, saves trees, reduces pesticide use, improves cropland, etc. etc. etc. So why wouldn't these corporations WANT to improve their product by switching to a new source material?

I can certainly understand why the pharmaceutical industry is against it - but I just don't get why the others are sticking with trees and cotton.

Click to expand...

Sure it makes better paper, but paper is mainly an offshoot of the lumber/forestry industry. And those folks want nothing to do with taking away their way to make money.
Cotton producers keep lobbyists in place because of cotton's inferiority as a textile. Cotton wears out and forces the consumer to purchase more cotton products. Hemp doesn't wear out in a lifetime, so there is no return buisness for textile manufacturers.
Chemical companies don't want farmers to use less pesticide, so they have those same lobbyists as the forestry, alcohol, tobacco, etc., in place to wine and dine our congresspeople, so they can understand the plight of this poor, poor multibillion dollar company.

You want to know why the gov't wants nothng to do with mmj? It's because our system of gov't is broken, and only the rich get to be heard.

I'm glad to see the discussion continuing in Illinois. In May the MMJ Bill, sb650 failed to pass by 1 vote. Maybe after the election Illinois will pass a compassionate medical use law, don't seeing it happen in an election year.

At least our senator has agreed that MMJ should be legal, and said so this week, good man.
H

Hey, facelift - the vote was close, but not quite that close!
22 YEAS
29 NAYS
4 PRESENT

We lost by 7 votes. Votes of "present" are the equivalent of abstaining. Still, it's close enough, and has gotten closer every time it's been brought to vote, that maybe next year will turn the tide.

Sorry for the misinformation, I thought I read it had lost by one vote, or I wouldn't have posted it like that. I guess it's a step in a direction anyways.

Where did you get the vote totals?

I thought I had read about in NORML or MMP.

Haps said:

The pendulum has begun to swing back from the right edge in our political cycle, and the republickers have exposed themselves as enemies of the American people. It is time to make the changes to these and other laws. It is time to stand, time to speak out, time to VOTE!

Weed is for voters!
H

Click to expand...

oh but you are wrong my friend!!!!!!!!!!! there is ONE lone republican that stands FOR the people, and that man is RON PAUL. i may get bashed or may not, don't really care, but ron paul has stood by the constitution for all of his 25 years in congress(texas republican). if its not by the constitution he votes NO............ he is for states voting if they want hemp, mmj, or straight up legaliaztion. the feds have no right to get involved in states laws, unless IT'S AGAINST OUR CIVIL RIGHTS. our founders are rolling over in there graves right now, and are horrorfied at what we've let this country become. imho!!!!!!!!!


check it out for yourselfes, every REP. or DEM. canidate is amember of the CFR(council on foriegn relations) they are whats fueling AMNISTY and the destruction of our constitution, by forming the NAU(north american union),,,,,,,,,, all except one RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


so my question to anybody is this,,,,,,,,,,,how can they be different if they have the same goal???????????????????





VOTE people, don't let the "ELITES" rule the government, WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT is how it should be. WHEN THE PEOPLE FEAR THE GOVERNMENT, THAT IS TIRANNY. WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FEARS THE PEOPLE, THAT IS LIBERTY. (ben franklin)


stay safe and free,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,dwtc

This is a stupid question but I know nothing of politics. Lets say everyone on the planet wants MJ to be legal finally. Who is the current person/people that need to say "ok fine, its legal, its done" there is someone out there with that power, but who does it need to be? Is each state have its own person who can say yes, or no? Or is it a voting thing? Or a president thing?

ANYONE KNO THE NEXT TIME THE ILLINOIS SENATE VOTES ON THE MJ BILL?

ask dupont & monsanto why THEY don't want it leagl.