Going after the bastards that have worked against us for so long ?

[Cinderella99]

ureap...$$'s lookin' for you, I agree with most of what you're saying, but these are MY thoughts on THIS quote by you:

"...basically you telling us now that your fear is the catalyst to your desire for legalization, NOT a desire to want whats best for America and Americans and out economy..."

I don't nec. agree with the idea that legalization will be good for our Walmart economy, here's why:

I believe that the reason the world has not "legalized" cannabis is due primarily to the influence the US has on the UNODC. Once the UNODC is given clearance, and the US will have to do this if MJ is leagalized in the US, Many countries will be able to export MJ to us and it will fall under Fair Trade regulations. Why won't the production of MJ be outsourced like many other US jobs are now?

You see, there are a limited number of $'s in the US economy, if they spend more on MJ, theory goes, they will spend less on other taxable items... Especially if MJ is "outsourced", like everything else in our economy, there's no clear benefit (as far as the economists are concerned) to legalization. Now, with one state like CA legalizing, against the other 49, there is since CA would have the "unique" ability to produce something that could not be produced elsewhere. If states legalize collectively, there is no economic "scarcity" benefit to one particular state. I think that's why that congressman introduced AB390, he was capitalizing on CA's core competency of being "ahead of the curve".

So I think it's a double edged sword: Legalization will provide tax $$'s (raising the price of our weed of course) on a commodity that has not been taxed and black/grey mkt, but also opens the door to outsourcing and competition...

MAN, this f*ckin Haze is Great!

 

[slappyjack]

What I don't want is what we already have, decrim. Getting caught with less than an oz is basically legal, but also a $50 citation.[/B]

ok so you prefer to pay 50.00 tax (proposed in some bills) per ounce every time instead of the occasional fine?

No, I don't want to pay anything for smoking my flowers. That's why I'm for full legalization.

I'm not concerned with paying taxes because I haven't purchased cannabis since 1988, I smoke only what I grow for myself.

I'll happily pay $50 for an ounce of seeds or an ounce worth of clones.

 

[GodIsGreen]

Not new here - just disappeared for awhile for security reasons and now have returned. I would like to add my take the legalization vs. decriminalization debate.

First, if I recall correctly, the government in actuality cannot legalize something. Everything is legal other than what is specifically barred in the Constitution until a law is enacted prohibiting whatever act, thereby making it illegal. Therefore, all that can be technically done is to remove whatever prohibitions are in place that bar said act. That does not exclude the government from enacting new prohibitions in the form of regulation (taxes, 21 and older, DUI, etc.)

As for my take on the whole debate, I would have no problems paying modest tax on decent smoke (impossible to get here). I would prefer that taxing exclude qualifying patients, however.

I also have no problem with taxing and licensing commercial ops. HOWEVER, I would only agree to such a notion if it included something similar to home-brew laws throughout the country for "do-it-yourselfers". For example, the state I am in allows me to brew so many gallons of beer per year based on whether there are one or two adults living in the household. The amount is excessively larger than what I would ever brew in a year. I am also not allowed to distribute it. Beyond that, I technically become a brewery and am open to further regulations.

Looking at it from a brewing industry perspective (which I think would be a good industry to model the weed industry after business-wise) I think there is room for both the big growers who can sale at low cost and high volumes, the niche growers (i.e., "micro-brewery") who can sale at high cost and low volumes (primarily local/regional), and your home-growers who are allowed X amount per year, no distribution (sales).

The above three-tiered method gives those who want to grow at home all the room they need to do their thing, while providing those who wish an opportunity to become a "micro-grower" for profit. For those who just want to smoke and not bother with growing (or can't), then the commercial ops are there to provide want they want.

I think prices will definitely be out of whack for awhile (high), but once the markets settle into a comfortable rhythm of supply-and-demand, prices will moderate becoming more than reasonable for the right to smoke while still allowing the home-growers to keep at it.

I have told everyone I have ever debated about the "legalization" of weed with that the only way it was ever going to occur was when the politicians finally realized the money-making and money-saving potential of weed. The taxing potential is simply too large to ignore and in the end, I believe it will be weed's saving grace.

 

[Lazyman]

If a commercial grower doesn't want legalization he's a short sighted fool. Any commercial grower worth his salt would be set free, expand his operation, and make a hell of a lot more money in a legal environment. Oh, and not worry about ending up behind bars to boot.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are plenty of idiot commercial growers who can't see the forest for the trees.

Legalization also means pharm-agra gets into the game, and all of your cheap weed will be grown by companies life Pfizer and RJ Reynolds. I believe few growers would be able to compete with their scale and prices, and small growers (under 100K lights, if done indoors) would be pushed out quickly. Quality will suffer but prices will drop fast. If only one state legalizes (I'm told the Feds have to legalize before states though) then they will export to other states, sustaining the black market a bit longer, but prices will still fall in places like California.

Expanding from 4 lights to 20 wouldn't make a difference really, when companies with multi-million or -billion dollar budgets move in and take over. We will all suffer when/if that ever happens.

My apologies if I'm reiterating things stated earlier in this thread, I didn't read the whole thing before posting.