If I was speculating on this a bit... California within five years will legalize medical marijuana to take a bite out of our increasing deficit. There is so much in the way of taxable income that can be made off this. My mother who is a cancer survivor used it to deal with the effects of the chemo. From this experience alone, I feel that legalizing it for folks who have a medical prescription is not a bad thing. What ever it takes to make someone more comfortable and able to deal with whatever medical issues present themselves. It's all about quality of life and if someone's life is improved from cannibus then so be it. Approval ratings have risen above 50% of the population now. It's just a matter of time before we see legalization. CB
I respect your perspectives on the matter. However, please stray away from stereotypes. It's purely childish to associated a group of people whom consume something with such immature stereotypes. Many great people (including past Presidents [and our current one]) have smoked marijuana. Many great thinkers, musicians, writers, and artists have also done so.
Please take a logical perspective in this matter.
Discuss the sociological, criminal, economical positive and negative effects, and so on.
But chewing tobacco (and spitting it which is beyond nasty), smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol is ok? I look at pot like beer. You shouldn't be doing it for 8 hours prior to a shift if you are paid or responding to a call if you are volunteer, but there is certainly nothing more wrong about using pot than beer assuming pot was made legal. Something isn't immoral just because it is illegal. At one time alcohol was illegal.
Lighten up, you asked for an opinion and you got it from them.
Besides - your example of "great people" is your opinion. The president isn't smoking the pot today and deciding on pushing any buttons that could start a war or hurt anyone. Firefighters are concerned with fellow firefighters coming to work "FIT FOR DUTY"
The president can't take a dump without someone making sure the paper is soft enough for him...
Unless the the law is changed on the Federal level (which isn't likely), the legalization of cannabis by California or any other state will end up costing that state more with the loss of federal tax monies, such as highway funding.
Yes the argument is there that the taxing would bring in millions of dollars. Probably would too. but at what cost to the public. Many studies have shown how much worse marijuana is on the bodies organs, especially the brain than is alcohol. As far as the argument that marijuana is no worse than alcohol, THC stays in the body for days where alcohol is eliminated in hours. There have also been studies which show that moderate consumption of alcohol may be beneficial. The therapeutic benefits of marijuana have also been well documented for chronic illnesses and chemo therapy.
The government, insurance companies, and the public already spends millions on health issues related to alcohol and tobacco use. Would these cost not increase if the health effects of marijuana are added? What seems like an answer to economic woes on the surface, may not be as good a deal if we start digging deeper.
Alcohol was illegal once. It did not stop the consumption. When it had been made legal again, there wasn't a huge influx of monies filling government coffers, plus it didn't stop the illegal manufacture and sale. The same argument may be made against legalizing marijuana.
Growing up in the 60s and 70s, I at one time would have applauded the thought of legalization. Now, my brain cells which weren't damaged have had time to think about this issue over the last 25 years, and I guess I am one of what we called in the day as "square". I really think it would be a major source of woe. Maybe not for the current generation, but for future generations assuming the world doesn't end in 2012. In other words... a very bad idea.
So... another perspective on legalization is that all of our departments are facing severe cutbacks due to loss of revenues collected... so if pot was taxed, would your department turn down additional monies collected from the taxation of marijuana? I don't think so...
Yesterday, voters in Oakland, California overwhelmingly approved a proposal, backed by the city’s medical marijuana community, that will create a new local sales tax for marijuana. The initiative, “Measure F,” was one of four budget-related measures in a vote-by-mail special election called by a city faced with a projected budget deficit of $83 million.
Medical marijuana collectives teamed up with city officials to propose the new tax, set at 1.8% of gross sales. The tax is expected to generate close to $300,000 for the city next year.
It’s not every day that an industry stands up and says “tax us more.” MPP commends Oakland’s four medical marijuana collectives for stepping up to the plate and helping the bridge the city’s budget gap.
This is the first time a municipality has levied a special tax on marijuana. For now, the tax will only apply to medical marijuana collectives, but once adult marijuana use is legal in California, it will apply to all sales.
A similar movement to tax medical marijuana sales is also underway in Los Angeles.
We can either reduce the amount of welfare checks given out and all the perks for illegal aliens and their offspring or we can come up with other ways to bring in tax monies... do you want a paycheck or not?
California's economy is spiraling down the drain forcing folks to think outside of the box... I doubt we are alone in regard to financial crisis issues... If it comes to me not getting a paycheck because someone's worried about morality, well, that does not pay the bills. I see no problem with letting folks who smoke pot support the fire department budget. What ever it takes to keep us afloat so we can do our jobs.
While I agree that an industry usually does not say "tax me more", I couldn't help but notice the figures.
Now I'm not real swooft in math, but the projected tax revenue seems to be less than 1 % of the deficit. While maybe nothing to sneeze at, that still leaves a bunch of deficit.