# Legalization May Not Be What You Think....



## hockey4848 (May 5, 2010)

It is a step I would not feel comfortable taking. I am extremely well read on the topic and I could sit all day and explain to you how legalization will fail miserably at state levels. If you are a california resident, do not vote yes on it being fully legalized because you think mj is a non lethal plant, that has potential to raise your struggling state some tax money. Vote no because you enjoy the schools/hospitals/parks/libraries/roads you currently have. If the republicans ever get back into office (who hate marijuana) will simply pull all federal aid from cali.

I could go deep into the economics of it but the tax revenue people are saying could be raised from legalization is false. The governments estimates on how big the MJ business really is, is 10-120 billion a year. A very arguably number. A number devised from seizures and things like that. But who really knows. So one would automatically think, "wow put a 30% tax on it and the gov can raise easily in the billions." This is however wrong because these money #'s are drawn from current black market pricing, which is high due the risk involved for the manufactures/dealers/transporters etc. Frankly there is already a large tax on marijuana, the tax of getting caught. You take that illegal aspect away from it and it is just like any other plant. And any other legal consumable plant we have in our lives is rather cheap. A head of lettuce is maybe a pound and it costs $2.99. And unfortunately marijuana users do not use all that much product compared to other heavily taxed items. A heavy smoker may smoke 20-40 cigarettes a day. A heavy MJ user will smoke a fraction of this amount. The "100 billion dollar" marijuana industry people in favor of legalization for tax generating purposes are dreaming, this is the illegal market of $3-5,000 a pound marijuana. When legalized this number will automatically drop drastically.

My point is, heavy taxes will have to be applied to marijuana for it to make any real money. Which will in turn drive the black market farther underground and ultimately thrive.


----------



## deprave (May 5, 2010)

so you vote to keep the biggest lie going because your scared of what MIGHT happen? Please reconsider your vote, I would like some real freedom and liberty in this country, how about you?


----------



## SmokesLikeBob (May 5, 2010)

A whole lot of other states are following california, and are strongly considering full legalization, if not that, decriminalization, so let's see the goddamn republicans try to pull federal aid from half the fuckin' USA!!!


SLB


----------



## lovemug (May 6, 2010)

the price isnt going to go down to much there is going to still be a huge demand. how many people eat letuce 3 or 4 times a day? the tax on cigarettes is curently higher than the price of them in my state and they are talking about putting another 1$ raise on them. even if there is a black market people are going to buy marijuana that is taxed. the more the price of it goes down the higher the taxes will be. i dont think it would cause a significant drop in the price. 
With the way the liberation of marijuana smokers is going now, by the time republicans get back into office the movement will be rolling full steam. people are waking up and understanding there is alot of responsible people who smoke. Its not the devils drug it was once made out to be.


----------



## caregivers (May 6, 2010)

lovemug said:


> the price isnt going to go down to much there is going to still be a huge demand. how many people eat letuce 3 or 4 times a day? the tax on cigarettes is curently higher than the price of them in my state and they are talking about putting another 1$ raise on them. even if there is a black market people are going to buy marijuana that is taxed. the more the price of it goes down the higher the taxes will be. i dont think it would cause a significant drop in the price.
> With the way the liberation of marijuana smokers is going now, by the time republicans get back into office the movement will be rolling full steam. people are waking up and understanding there is alot of responsible people who smoke. Its not the devils drug it was once made out to be.



I don't live in California but I am watching this progress very carefully. I am in Montana which permits use of medical cannabis. I am an accounting and economic student and I can almost gaurentee you that the price of cannabis will fall greatly if fully legalized. Price will drop for several reasons more farmers will start to grow it which will cause more competition for wholesaler purchasers, then the market will be flooded with it. Prices start to fall until it has established a equilbrium (basic supply and demand concept). Another thing is you are taking out the "risk factor" in growing, transporting, distributing, cannabis. With risk always a higher reward, otherwise people wouldn't invest would they? 

Hockey4848, I didn't think about the aspect of the govt pulling federal funds out of California. If the government did this then California will suffer greatly. Almost everything is subsidized in California from food stamps, section 8, to various programs. Imagine if this all stopped what do you think those people on subsidies would do? WIll the tax on Cannabis be enough? really think so? why isnt it now? California has a huge economy with a great number of people (possibly the biggest economy in the US) but they also have the biggest debt. California would have to double maybe even triple thier taxes on everything from sales to property taxes in order to make ends meet. 

I am all for legalization of cannabis but I beleive baby steps is the way to do it. When you legalize something like this there is always unintended consequences. So if you do fully legalize it, maybe Mexico will become the biggest importer if cannabis. This would happen if US decides to tax it too much, no? Similar to domestic and foreign cars. You have to think this from an economic, governmental viewpoint. Most people are only looking at it from a social viewpoint and that is good but should not be your only basis for legalization of cannabis.


----------



## jdizzle22 (May 6, 2010)

Even if the taxes generated are not what expected, all the money saved from not having to have to deal with all the peaceful marijuana users and arresting them, prosecuting, jailing, etc. will more than make up for it. All the long term health benefits will also reduce costs, people won't get head, neck/throat, and long complications as much (as long as they stay away from cigarettes). I think legalization is not what hockey4848 thinks it will be


----------



## ford442 (May 6, 2010)

jdizzle22 said:


> Even if the taxes generated are not what expected, all the money saved from not having to have to deal with all the peaceful marijuana users and arresting them, prosecuting, jailing, etc. will more than make up for it. All the long term health benefits will also reduce costs, people won't get head, neck/throat, and long complications as much (as long as they stay away from cigarettes). I think legalization is not what hockey4848 thinks it will be


exactly - there are your 'social costs' right there.. i really want some hemp cigs to get me off of tobacco..
even if the weed itself is $5 / oz. you still have all the other business associated with it - nurseries, clone/seed production, cafes and other venues, large scale farming and all of the other things that create jobs instead of destroy lives..!


----------



## jdizzle22 (May 6, 2010)

People buying more doritos...
Classes on growing, the whole hemp industry producing fuel, paper, textiles, plastics, nutritious things, hemp lotions, so many things
The pros absolutely totally 100% blow the cons out of the water


----------



## Tonymon1 (May 6, 2010)

hockey4848 said:


> It is a step I would not feel comfortable taking. I am extremely well read on the topic and I could sit all day and explain to you how legalization will fail miserably at state levels. If you are a california resident, do not vote yes on it being fully legalized because you think mj is a non lethal plant, that has potential to raise your struggling state some tax money. Vote no because you enjoy the schools/hospitals/parks/libraries/roads you currently have. If the republicans ever get back into office (who hate marijuana) will simply pull all federal aid from cali.
> 
> I could go deep into the economics of it but the tax revenue people are saying could be raised from legalization is false. The governments estimates on how big the MJ business really is, is 10-120 billion a year. A very arguably number. A number devised from seizures and things like that. But who really knows. So one would automatically think, "wow put a 30% tax on it and the gov can raise easily in the billions." This is however wrong because these money #'s are drawn from current black market pricing, which is high due the risk involved for the manufactures/dealers/transporters etc. Frankly there is already a large tax on marijuana, the tax of getting caught. You take that illegal aspect away from it and it is just like any other plant. And any other legal consumable plant we have in our lives is rather cheap. A head of lettuce is maybe a pound and it costs $2.99. And unfortunately marijuana users do not use all that much product compared to other heavily taxed items. A heavy smoker may smoke 20-40 cigarettes a day. A heavy MJ user will smoke a fraction of this amount. The "100 billion dollar" marijuana industry people in favor of legalization for tax generating purposes are dreaming, this is the illegal market of $3-5,000 a pound marijuana. When legalized this number will automatically drop drastically.
> 
> My point is, heavy taxes will have to be applied to marijuana for it to make any real money. Which will in turn drive the black market farther underground and ultimately thrive.


I apologize if I come off rude and dismissive, with that said while I hear where you are coming from you are absolutely incorrect.

As much as many republicans hate cannabis and go out of their way to re-enforce false beliefs, they absolutely would not cut federal funding, that would be akin to telling a state they are no longer part of the union. You are talking about at the very least the biggest supreme court battle ever and at worst civil war. If you would have said when the Republicans regain control they will roll in with the DEA and turn the place upside down, then that at least would be possible. But even that, while problematic for the state is actually a good thing, it will formally create the discussion at the federal level of how to deal with cannabis. The Feds have 3 options, ignore it, accept it, or fight it. If they choose the 3rd they are in for a lengthy legal battle with science, logic, and reason on the side of reform. You are also operating under the belief that if/when Cali passes legalization that the Democrats would pass some Federal laws before they lose majority making it even harder for the the Republicans to do anything. I know the responce will be Dems don't want to touch it, but if Cali moves forward they will be forced to. You argument is the same as what is said about if Canada were to legalized, that the US would cut ties, close borders, ect... It's simply not in the best interest of anyone to take such drastic measures and will not happen.

The economic aspect...Yes, we don't know how much money would actually be brought in, estimates are estimates. We do know that cannabis is this countries number 1 cash crop and it will bring in billions in tax revenue, just how many billions can be debated till the cows come home. Usually anti-legalization people take the exact opposite opinion that legal and taxed will cost more. You are on the right path however incorrect, prices will drop but most of the estimates base their figures not off black market pricing but simply $50 per ounce taxes. When legalized prices will drop, however not drastically in my opinion. The price will have to drop enough as to make the risk not worth the reward for the black market, but it will only drop to whatever price point that is. The market black or otherwise knows how much people are willing to pay and will get all they can. It's also your definition of drastically, right now an ounce of medical grade goes for around $400, depending on where you are, ect... but $400 seems to be average. I would expect the price to drop to around $150 with a $50 tax. So all together it would cost around half of the current cost, so the black market would dry up due to less people willing to risk it along with losing their customers to legit businesses, the profit simply wouldn't be there for them.


----------



## nlblue (May 8, 2010)

The GOP has a lot of libertarians in it, not just "moralists". If you say with a broad brush "Republicans" then you don't know much about thr GOP, don't know much about the innerworkings of the party, or what it is composed of, etc. etc. Gary Johnson (former GOP Gov of NM) may be the most vocal about wanting legalization, and Ron Paul CERTAINLY is a libertarian, but a lot of GOP agree but lack the balls to admit it, because they are truly out of touch with their constituancy on this issue. Meaning it wouldn't damage them in reelection near as much as they think in a lot of districts. Funny thing I learned over the years, most of the Dead Heads I have known thru the years tend to fall on the Republican side on the majority of issues. So don't discount the Republicans. Notice in this article, that I'm sure you've all seen if you keep up with the issue, that Gary Johnson was speaking to LAW STUDENTS. http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/mar/20/former-gop-governor-wants-pot-legal/ 
I remind you that many LAW STUDENTS LATER BECOME OUR JUDGES, Congressmen, etc. Thats important to note. The war on this plant needs to end, and folks are coming around. The more who have tried it, the more know it is safer than alcohol. Federal decriminalization would be a good first step and legalization nationally of medicinal use. It would be if not for international treaty. But thats a whole nother discussion.


----------



## nlblue (May 8, 2010)

P.S. not to mention an excerpt from cannabisnews: http://www.cannabisnews.org/united-states-cannabis-news/legalized-pot-a-tough-sell-in-governors-race/
"Republican Tom Campbell, for example, has denounced the government&#8217;s war on drugs in past campaigns, saying the billions of dollars that go to eradication and imprisonment would be better spent on treatment. Opponents, including Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whom the former South Bay congressman unsuccessfully challenged in 2000, have attacked him as soft on drugs and a would-be legalizer." How do you like them apples? The "liberal" Feinstein is now a conservative?? and the "conservative" is an outright libertarian on this issue. Funny how that works isnt it?


----------



## caregivers (May 8, 2010)

ford442 said:


> exactly - there are your 'social costs' right there.. i really want some hemp cigs to get me off of tobacco..
> even if the weed itself is $5 / oz. you still have all the other business associated with it - nurseries, clone/seed production, cafes and other venues, large scale farming and all of the other things that create jobs instead of destroy lives..!


SO you want to replace one habit with another? Something doesnt seem to add up there. I don't think cannabis would be any healthier for you than tobacco provided the same method is used other than the addiction. 

As for social cost you have to think from the other side as well, If pot did become fully legal then how many people would lose thier job in the government and "war on drugs". You are saying many folks will be hired in the industry of farming, cloning, etc etc. I think it will even out and then down the road several years, more people will lose their jobs than because how many farmers does it take to grow 100 acres of product? In Montana only takes 1 or maybe 2. So all the people who will be fired or laid off in governement, treatment centers, etc etc will outnumber the folks who will be hired in the cannabis industry. Then we have the next generation of the tabacco industry. Right now the price is high and should be due to the risk but will fall with legalization. Say to 5 dollars an oz how many folks can that company hire selling it for that much? The math just doesn't add up.

I am a democrat (most of the time) and I agree with nlblue about republicans. DOnt group them all up together , thats like saying white men can't jump or some stereotypical like that. I remember I read an artile l(only if I could find it) that more republicans favor legalization of cannabis over democrats. That was several years ago and dont know if that holds water today. 

CGs


----------



## ford442 (May 8, 2010)

i want to have cannabis smokes because they are not addictive and do not cause cancer.. 
i don't care if DEA officers lose their jobs.. did the spanish inquisition all get pensions afterward? the SS? i hate the "war on drugs" - i cannot condone it.. they can all go dig holes and then fill them in for a living..


----------



## jdizzle22 (May 8, 2010)

caregivers said:


> SO you want to replace one habit with another? Something doesnt seem to add up there. I don't think cannabis would be any healthier for you than tobacco provided the same method is used other than the addiction.
> 
> As for social cost you have to think from the other side as well, If pot did become fully legal then how many people would lose thier job in the government and "war on drugs". You are saying many folks will be hired in the industry of farming, cloning, etc etc. I think it will even out and then down the road several years, more people will lose their jobs than because how many farmers does it take to grow 100 acres of product? In Montana only takes 1 or maybe 2. So all the people who will be fired or laid off in governement, treatment centers, etc etc will outnumber the folks who will be hired in the cannabis industry. Then we have the next generation of the tabacco industry. Right now the price is high and should be due to the risk but will fall with legalization. Say to 5 dollars an oz how many folks can that company hire selling it for that much? The math just doesn't add up.
> 
> ...


Smoking marijuana is ABSOLUTELY less damaging than tobacco (and is NOT physically addictive, and is considered less addictive in general than even coffee). In fact, THC is so good for your system that a life time of smoking marijuana will not increase your risk of head, neck/throat, and lung complications compared to the non smoking populace. Not to mention (weird phrase?) all the long term health benefits it may provide, with all the evidence that THC can fight the onset of Alzheimers, many kinds of cancer (not even counting how powerful it must be to be able to fight the carcinogens in the smoke to the point it doesn't increase your risk any of the respiratory system complications that cigarette use can lead to), and tumor growth. Marijuana use can also be used to fight depression and anxiety without the many side effects of prescription pills, and it even shows promise in helping those with asthma!!! ASTHMA? HOLY SHIT! * studies also show that children born to mothers that smoked marijuana throughout their pregnancy were not effected by it!!! I could go on about this kind of stuff all day, but hopefully since you are registered on a site like this, you already know most of this (although I guess not since you said something silly like - "I don't think cannabis would be any healthier for you than tobacco")

Back to the point..?
Sure there are some people that will try marijuana once its legal, but most people that will do it already do it and those people who care enough already know how to pass drug tests (hopefully with legalization we will at least be able to do away with random drug testing and maybe even develop some way to measure marijuana intoxication like we can with alcohol). I think the idea of the industry hiring tons of people to do the job and then a little while later getting rid of most of them because of cost efficiency issues is silly, they would figure that out before they got started. If big huge farms won't be able to grow for the general populace, then mom and pop shops will kick ass at it (because they already do).

PS: The people that work for the government/state that would lose their jobs to legalization don't deserve them in the first place (put them to work against people that are a harm to society, don't send them after nonviolent drug offenders). Most prisons now are privately run I believe, and they have big lobbying power in California that they useto keep marijuana illegal so they can continue to be in big business putting peaceful pot heads away for years.


----------



## grow plenty (May 8, 2010)

fuck the pros and fuck the cons....if anyone tjhinks this drug should be anything but 100% legal, should go do a bout 3 or 5 yrs in a fuckin jail cell, then weigh your goddam pros and cons. fuckin legalize like booze so we can get high without going back to prison, or lose my house,or get my fuckin dogs shot, ect. ect. theres the goddam pros...im sorry, what were the cons again? another addiction?..lung cancer? dont sound no worse than prison to me.


----------



## sinu1er (May 10, 2010)

Honestly to me you can throw away all the politics and what it comes down to for most people is the piece of mind you get from legalization just like grow plenty just said I personally want to be able to enjoy something that grows naturally in my own house and not have to be afraid of getting taken away from my family and friends.. if your a smoker then that should outweigh the political tax crap IMO


----------



## ford442 (May 12, 2010)

yes.. it goes without saying that peace of mind comes from ending the prohibition.. 

again - i will add that it really goes beyond the puffing and passing - california will be able to grow tons of hemp and study how to make plastic, gasoline, building materials - a huge list of industries will be able to take advantage of it as a properly renewable resource.. we can stop cutting down trees for paper and using non-renewable oil for everything...!


----------



## LowRider82 (May 12, 2010)

nlblue said:


> The GOP has a lot of libertarians in it, not just "moralists". If you say with a broad brush "Republicans" then you don't know much about thr GOP, don't know much about the innerworkings of the party, or what it is composed of, etc. etc. Gary Johnson (former GOP Gov of NM) may be the most vocal about wanting legalization, and Ron Paul CERTAINLY is a libertarian, but a lot of GOP agree but lack the balls to admit it, because they are truly out of touch with their constituancy on this issue. Meaning it wouldn't damage them in reelection near as much as they think in a lot of districts. Funny thing I learned over the years, most of the Dead Heads I have known thru the years tend to fall on the Republican side on the majority of issues. So don't discount the Republicans. Notice in this article, that I'm sure you've all seen if you keep up with the issue, that Gary Johnson was speaking to LAW STUDENTS. http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/mar/20/former-gop-governor-wants-pot-legal/
> I remind you that many LAW STUDENTS LATER BECOME OUR JUDGES, Congressmen, etc. Thats important to note. The war on this plant needs to end, and folks are coming around. The more who have tried it, the more know it is safer than alcohol. Federal decriminalization would be a good first step and legalization nationally of medicinal use. It would be if not for international treaty. But thats a whole nother discussion.


Was going to mention Gary Johnson myself and explain what you put but you said it better than i would have anyway. I would add this about the Republicans or conservatives out there and to top it off i live in the bible belt in GA but most of us would rather see it legalized. the party has been takin over and the party is out of step with its own people. 

Can someone explain to me if the international treaty on legalizing drugs was ratified by Congress? i mean there supposed to be anyway according to the Constitution if it still means something


----------



## Disco Pwnstar (May 12, 2010)

call me paranoid but i think this shit is bogus. no one would have this point of view on here, while being from a legitimate source.

its so easy to propagandize americans because they believe its not present in their country. if this isnt bullshit, be on the lookout because this is a very effective way to make people doubt a cause, or even qather info on what facts people argue back with.


----------



## Disco Pwnstar (May 12, 2010)

this dude is a total fake. he joined RIU over a year ago, posted and deleted one other thread, and then this stupid shit. you guys better watch your backs because unanimity can be a valuable tool...


----------



## jesus of Cannabis (May 12, 2010)

its legal in Michigan and I grow my 12 plants all year and have no problem paying taxes on the supplies I use. I use what I grow and not a seed leaves my house or anything else. It is mine and it is legal and has been voted on. Try and take that away and someone is going to have a very very bad day.


----------



## ImTheFireMan (May 15, 2010)

its already legal here in cali, go get a card.


----------



## jdizzle22 (May 15, 2010)

I wish it were as easy going in WA as Cali
I'm not sure if people up here will even get enough signatures to get our legalization bill on the ballot


----------



## roachwagon (May 15, 2010)

yeah I agree jdizzle. Its always about cali, we are trying to legalize here in WA state but we never get it recognized, same with Oregon.


----------



## NLXSK1 (May 17, 2010)

And healthcare was supposed to be about reducing the deficit... ROFLMAO!!! (to no one in particular)...

I really would like to see a bunch of DEA agents get canned. They get paid taxpayer money (higher taxes) to take productive citizens (for the most part) and throw them in jail where the taxpayers have to support their confinement for additional dollars. Show me where that is saving society any money... Dont get me wrong, if someone commits a violent crime or a crime with a gun I would like to see them do hard time. However, some grower or dealer of weed does not deserve the same treatment. This war costs lives, costs families, costs huge amounts in taxes and other associated expenses...

We would save money on enforcement, save money on confinement and prosecution, save money on border enforcement (less drug trafficking) and we would gain money from tax revenue. California can barely afford to keep beat cops on the streets... You had better believe that they are going to legalize and tax pot for that one reason alone...


----------



## ford442 (May 18, 2010)

i have never liked the idea of SWAT teams busting into homes armed to the teeth.. now i know that they do this about 150 times every day in the us.. 70% of those are for pot i assume.. it occurs to me that this is why we have people that hate the police for creating a fascist oppressive state.. back off on the door smashing and the dog shooting and maybe you will have a better reaction from the public...


----------



## lordj (May 18, 2010)

It's simple, really. Just get rid of the federal laws against the possession, sale and distribution of marijuana, in any amount. Too many people in jail while some drunk runs over a stroller. Here's what I believe will happen if they make it legal:

1. The price of pot will go WAY DOWN because these things will happen:
A. Tons more people will grow it, the supply will outstrip the demand. Pot grow warehouses will spring up like crazy. I mean BIG warehouses (Hello, Pfizer). You can grow it on a farm but once people find out where the farms are, they'll wait for harvest and steal it from the farmer. When the price goes way down, some of the warehouses will go idle due to the decline in price.
B. The cartels won't make any money off it; they'll have to figure out something else (cocaine, meth, heroine, etc.).

2. 800,000 potheads will get out of jail.

3. Initially, the sales tax revenue will be substantial, but soon enough, government won't be able to rely on the revenue because the prices will go way down, people will grow their own, etc.

4. And finally, 800,000 potheads will get out of jail.

Think about people growing it in their homes: IT'S EASY. We don't make our own cigarettes or booze but after all the lights, nutes, grow medium and accessories costs, a lot of them will stop growing it and just buy it at the local liquor store for $5-$10 an ounce. Lots of people won't die senselessly because of the "WAR ON DRUGS". Juarez might actually become a decent place to visit. Californians relying on the legalization for income will be disappointed in a few years when the furor (and the tax revenue) dies down.

Can you imagine what a bottle of 10-year old scotch would cost if we still had Prohibition?


----------



## ford442 (May 18, 2010)

great points lordj!! i agree 100%..

i will add on 1. B. that it is going to be a real uphill battle for the crime syndicates to compensate for losing 70% of their profits - it is really impossible to get more people addicted to hard drugs than already are - they would have to push harder into something like gun running and human trafficking which attracts a lot more international attention than bales of weed.. also - how are they going to expand any of their operations without their huge profit margin? they spend $30,000,000,000 a year on bribing officials and that is almost all of what they take in from their non-pot sources...

like i said before - there is a bigger picture here than just the puffing and passing and state officials have become increasingly aware of it..


----------



## lordj (May 19, 2010)

The two main reasons to legalize it, regardless of tax revenue claims are:
1. Dilute the cartels money machine and therefore, end the violence.
2. End the parade of people going to jail for using pot.
Anybody (even kids) who wants to smoke does it now anyway, so it's not like you're gonna have a whole bunch of people suddenly trying it out.
End the stupidity, hypocrisy and violence. NOW, dammit!


----------



## ford442 (May 19, 2010)

i want to also see -
3. Cannabis studied and used as it should have been as a safe, renewable product for medicine, industry, and energy.. i am considering the environment and our health as humans - not the revenue..



it is strange and kind of bothers me that the tax money is what people seem to think of first... really? we have to bribe you to do the right thing? or are you accepting a bribe to abandon your actual principles? i guess money somehow outweighs and overrides all physical existence when it comes down to it...


----------



## jahjah kush (May 19, 2010)

might be a lil off topic but op do you honestly think that the federal government would cut off all funding to the state of california if marijuana was made legal? get real it would be completely impractical


----------



## lordj (May 20, 2010)

It would be a reason for California to secede from the U.S. if funding was cut off... they're pretty damn far from Washington as it is. A whole other country!
Another benefit from legalization: growing hemp. Lots of uses for it: paper, clothing, insulation just to name a few. Read somewhere that George Washington (or maybe Thomas Jefferson) said: "Grow the hemp plant. Grow it as much as you can."


----------



## ford442 (May 20, 2010)

i heard from the executive director of NORML the other day that the founding fathers also smoked cannabis - they grew it for medicine and industry and to smoke.. forensic evidence in their pipes proves it..


----------



## Greens22 (May 20, 2010)

hockey4848 said:


> It is a step I would not feel comfortable taking. I am extremely well read on the topic and I could sit all day and explain to you how legalization will fail miserably at state levels. If you are a california resident, do not vote yes on it being fully legalized because you think mj is a non lethal plant, that has potential to raise your struggling state some tax money. Vote no because you enjoy the schools/hospitals/parks/libraries/roads you currently have. If the republicans ever get back into office (who hate marijuana) will simply pull all federal aid from cali.
> 
> I could go deep into the economics of it but the tax revenue people are saying could be raised from legalization is false. The governments estimates on how big the MJ business really is, is 10-120 billion a year. A very arguably number. A number devised from seizures and things like that. But who really knows. So one would automatically think, "wow put a 30% tax on it and the gov can raise easily in the billions." This is however wrong because these money #'s are drawn from current black market pricing, which is high due the risk involved for the manufactures/dealers/transporters etc. Frankly there is already a large tax on marijuana, the tax of getting caught. You take that illegal aspect away from it and it is just like any other plant. And any other legal consumable plant we have in our lives is rather cheap. A head of lettuce is maybe a pound and it costs $2.99. And unfortunately marijuana users do not use all that much product compared to other heavily taxed items. A heavy smoker may smoke 20-40 cigarettes a day. A heavy MJ user will smoke a fraction of this amount. The "100 billion dollar" marijuana industry people in favor of legalization for tax generating purposes are dreaming, this is the illegal market of $3-5,000 a pound marijuana. When legalized this number will automatically drop drastically.
> 
> My point is, heavy taxes will have to be applied to marijuana for it to make any real money. Which will in turn drive the black market farther underground and ultimately thrive.




your an idiot. For many of us, its not about the money, but for the freedom to smoke cannabis with no worries. If it is legal, if anything, the economy will increase and not decrease. you said you were well read on this topic, and it looks like your not. Have you thought about the other uses the cannabis plant has other then producing delicous buds. It can be used for food, clothing, fuel, etc...there are so many uses, that there will be many more job openenings, boosting the economy because of the increase in money flow through our system.


----------



## ford442 (May 21, 2010)

of course it is ok to have un-fun rules for kids in this current age for their own physical protection, but when you start telling full grown individuals what to do you had better have a damn good reason.. we have the ten commandments - i am not very religious, but i agree that these are heavy duty rules so that civilization functions.. however, we have these things like canings, beheadings, severe punishments for things that don't actually harm anyone or create a problem.. arbitrary penalties for the trod upon - black people may not step on a white person's shadow? we have a pretty good justice system, but there needs to be more of an issue than adults choosing to smoke on a garden herb to justify forcing a man or woman into a dirty cage and keeping them there...

i am convinced that some people who have not tried weed for themselves to see what it is like think that it is strong like heroin - stronger than alcohol and that is why beer is legal and pot isn't? am i right? because strong narcotics are really an entirely different subject.. can anyone even name a commonly used recreational drug that is more mild than grass? people really think that it is something other than what it is.. addictive? no - are you a hermit who has never seen another human being? gateway drug? i'm not even sure what that means - is it something like in the Portal game?

i will stop ranting now.. reading the original post kind of infuriated me.. "a step I would not feel comfortable taking."  I WILL BLOW UP THE SUN!! are you comfortable with that?


----------



## jdizzle22 (May 21, 2010)

Well people that were afraid of industrial hemp putting them out of business did some sneaky stuff in the early 1900s to start making it illegal, such as get a law passed that require a tax stamp for your hemp/marijuana and then not making any of the stamps. Industrial hemp is a great source for superior paper, ropes, clothing, plastics, ethanol, so many things. I even hear a lot lately that you can make materials with hemp that are superior to nylon. That is the reason why it was illegal, so many rich bastards were afraid of losing business. They got everyone else to go along with it by making them think it would turn them into a crazy black person or a lazy mexican and a bunch of crap like that. Since people were still pretty racist at the time, they believed it. And over the years they just added more bullshit on top of that, and since people were raised from a young age and told all these terrible things about it, a lot of people still believe it is a terrible thing these days.

I bet it will be at least decriminalized in several states within the next few years, and hopefully fully legalized and regulated within this decade. It is probably the single most useful, harmless, beneficial plant on the face of the earth. We will be able to buy it freely soon.


----------



## o B12UT4L o (May 25, 2010)

I agree its not about money for me, I WANT MY FREEDOM to grow and smoke! I do wonder though what kind of money can be made by legalizing? We all have those friends who are afraid to grow or buy because the might get caught and lean on us to help them out... how many people are like that? I think if it was legal the number of new users could be astronomical. Although that might keep the prices up for a few months because the supply could not meet the demand.


----------



## ford442 (May 25, 2010)

there are lots of moochers - but, they already smoke.. i don't know anyone who doesn't smoke now just because of the law.. 
i think it would be nice if more people tried it and enjoyed it.. there will be no problem with that.. i don't think supply will ever be an issue - it is easy to grow more especially in a state with 25,000,000 acres of farm land.. 
right now we make $00.00 on recreational marijuana in this country - a business that totals well over $100,000,000,000.00 every year.. there is a lot of real trade money to be made legitimately and then taxes upon it.. and there will be NO 'social costs' afterward..


----------



## cannapharm (May 25, 2010)

Hey yall! I see a lot of mixed feelings about the issue of legalization. 

I think it should be legalized simply because "we the people" should have an option, to consume cannabis or not to consume cannabis (just like w/ alcohol). Thats to begin with. As far as the tax revenue, thats a debatable subject b/c everyone is speculating the possible outcome of numbers. I think it will bring millions to the state of CA and every other state that fallows. Now, I do know why some people may oppose. For example, EVERY SINGLE collective owner does not want MJ to be legal b/c legalization will considerably drop the price of cannabis. Once its legal (if not in 2010, 2012 for sure) the demand will skyrocket and the price will drop accordingly. Thats a no brainer if you have some basic econ knoweladge. As of right now, the only concern I have is cannabis being a schdl 1 drug. The first step should be to change that, i think. Things will be a lot easier if Federal Administraion changes that. Trust me.


----------



## DryIsADirtyWord (May 25, 2010)

Just out of curiosity - why does everyone seem to think that the DEA would lose their jobs? They have a perfectly legit purpose and job - coke, crack, heroine, crystal meth ... they'll still have plenty of work to do. Mary Jane should not be in the crosshairs though.

Semper Fi


----------



## ford442 (May 26, 2010)

more than half of all their arrests are for marijuana.. about 80% of their budget is for anti-pot.. stop the war on marijuana and their ranks will fall in number..
not so many people use hard drugs.. 15,000,000 americans use pot regularly - there are maybe half as many users of all other drugs combined..


----------



## Flymolo (May 27, 2010)

Hey all you CA residents, how many of you voting YES actually read AB2254?


----------



## ford442 (May 28, 2010)

AB2254 is not what CA is excited about - it was left in the shadow of http://www.taxcannabis2010.org/

*The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010*

Title and Summary: 
*Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.* 
Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products. 
Section 1: Name
This Act shall be known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. 
Section 2: Findings, Intent and Purposes
This Act, adopted by the People of the State of California, makes the following Findings and Statement of Intent and Purpose:
A. Findings
1. Californias laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed and need to be reformed. Despite spending decades arresting millions of non-violent cannabis consumers, we have failed to control cannabis or reduce its availability.
2. According to surveys, roughly 100 million Americans (around 1/3 of the countrys population) acknowledge that they have used cannabis, 15 million of those Americans having consumed cannabis in the last month. Cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans.
3. Despite having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, the United States has the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed.
4. According to The National Research Councils recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption.
5. Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent.
6. There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more.
7. California wastes millions of dollars a year targeting, arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning non-violent citizens for cannabis related offenses. This money would be better used to combat violent crimes and gangs.
8. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business.
B. Purposes
1. Reform Californias cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.
5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that citys limits remain illegal, but that the citys citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.
10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding.
11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.
12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.
13. Permit California to fulfill the states obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.
14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.
C. Intent
1. This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis, including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future: Health and Safety Code sections 11014.5 and 11364.5 [relating to drug paraphernalia]; 11054 [relating to cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinols]; 11357 [relating to possession]; 11358 [relating to cultivation]; 11359 [possession for sale]; 11360 [relating to transportation and sales]; 11366 [relating to maintenance of places]; 11366.5 [relating to use of property]; 11370 [relating to punishment]; 11470 [relating to forfeiture]; 11479 [relating to seizure and destruction]; 11703 [relating to definitions regarding illegal substances]; 11705 [actions for use of illegal controlled substance]; Vehicle Code sections 23222 and 40000.15 [relating to possession].
2. This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety. 
Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individuals personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.
(b) Personal consumption shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.
(c) Personal consumption shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
(i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
(ii) consumption in public or in a public place;
(iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present. 
Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
(c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
(d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;
(e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;
(f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;
(h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;
(i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;
(j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;
(k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;
(l) such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;
(m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare. 
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees
(a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
(b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold. 
Section 11303: Seizure
(a) Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act. 
Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions
(a) This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.
(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis. This Act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties.
(c)  No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
(d) Definitions
For purposes of this Act:
(i) Marijuana and cannabis are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.
(ii) One ounce means 28.5 grams.
(iii) For purposes of section 11300(a)(ii) cannabis plant means all parts of a living Cannabis plant.
(iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:
(a) only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included;
(b) living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);
(c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.
(v) residence means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes.
(vi) local government means a city, county, or city and county.
(vii) licensed premises is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation. 
Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense. (d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year. 
Section 5: Amendment
Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to:
(a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.
(b) Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302.
(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes. 
Section 6: Severability
If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.


----------



## Flymolo (May 28, 2010)

The initiative is what we're asking for. If you look at the language it's pretty vague. This is what the citizens of CA submitted to lawmakers to put it on the ballot this November. They got the required signatures and so the initiative will be voted on. AB 2254 is the "strings attatched" legality should the initiative pass. The initiative is just the front facade of Marijuana legalization. Notice how it just states what will happen BUT NOT HOW. It's not just legalization without a quandary of rules and regulations you know. AB2254 was re-introduced in February this year by Tom Ammiano. Here's a quick definition in a nutshell. An Act is a statute, Law, or a decision by a legislative or judicial body such as an Act of Congress. A Bill is a legislative proposal offered for debate before its enactment. A statute in draft before it becomes the law. Thanks for posting the initiative but that's just a fragment of the issue. Here: AB2254


----------



## ford442 (May 28, 2010)

as far as i know AB2254 is completely separate from the initiative.. they have conflicting regulations.. one is a bill and the other is an initiative.. AB2254 could pass before november..


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 10, 2010)

What a troll (thread starter).

DEA agents will lose their jobs - boohoo! It's a position that never should have been in place anyway. Anyone that makes a living off the illegality of marijuana SHOULD lose their job and the income in brings in. Now maybe after they transition they can get themselves a job doing something productive for society rather than needlessly using up money and resources without contributing a damn thing.


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 10, 2010)

DryIsADirtyWord said:


> Just out of curiosity - why does everyone seem to think that the DEA would lose their jobs? They have a perfectly legit purpose and job - coke, crack, heroine, crystal meth ... they'll still have plenty of work to do. Mary Jane should not be in the crosshairs though.
> 
> Semper Fi


They spend such a significant portion of their man power and money hunting for, eradicating, and busting growers/sellers of marijuana that if it were suddenly legal they would have nothing to do. Unless you are suggesting they take all those resources and refocus them on the harder drugs. I have a feeling they already focus as much as they want on those drugs though. What is the guy that flies a helicopter around looking for fields of pot going to do when it's legal?


----------



## fffuuudesu (Jun 17, 2010)

imo the prices will not drop drastically at all. people are damn comfortable paying 300 an ounce of the good stuff(many places over 500 for the primo). and im sorry it is NOT easy to grow top of the line. the competition will not come from cutting prices but from increasing quality. you will NEVER get the really good shit from huge outdoor farms(this area will be left for industrial/textiles/oils/etc). the cost of indoor and/or hydro production will remain moderate and so will the price. demind will stay constant as users will use regardless of any law. the market has no where to go but up because the market exists. legalization will only help those willing to put the time and effort to make quality crop and benefit those who use.

i implore you to read these articles

NORMLA 21-year-old father-to-be was killed last Friday night by a Las Vegas Police Department narcotics officer serving a search warrant for marijuana. Trevon Cole was shot once in the bathroom of his apartment after he made what police described as a furtive movement.
*Police have said Cole was not armed.* Police said Monday they recovered an unspecified amount of marijuana and a set of digital scales. A person identifying herself as Coles fiancée, Sequoia Pearce, in the comments section in the article linked to above said no drugs were found.
Pearce, who is nine months pregnant, shared the apartment with Cole and was present during the raid. I was coming out, and they told me to get on the floor. I heard a gunshot and was trying to see what was happening and where they had shot him, Pearce told KTNV-TV.
According to police, they arrived at about 9 p.m. Friday evening at the Mirabella Apartments on East Bonanza Road, and detectives knocked and announced their presence. Receiving no response, detectives knocked the door down and entered the apartment. They found Pearce hiding in a bedroom closet and took her into custody. They then tried to enter a bathroom where Cole was hiding. *He made a furtive movement toward a detective, who fired a single shot, killing Cole.*
 According to Pearce and family members, *Cole had no criminal record*, had achieved an Associate of Arts degree, and was working as an insurance adjustor while working on a political science degree at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. He was not a drug dealer, Pearce said.
*Trevon was a recreational smoker. He smoked weed, marijuana. Thats what he did, *she told KTNV-TV. They didnt have to kill him. We were supposed to get married next year, plan a black and white affair, she said. He was all I ever knew, we were gonna make it.


FOX NEWS​*LAS VEGAS -- *The Las Vegas Metro police detective who shot a 21-year-old man during a drug raid was identified Monday as Brian Yant.Yant, 34, is a 10-year veteran of the police department who is assigned to Metros narcotics division.During the raid Friday, police said Yant was confronted in a bathroom by 21-year-old Trevon Cole. Yant fired a single shot, saying Cole moved toward him.Coles girlfriend, Sequoia Pearce, was hiding in a bedroom closet during the raid. She was questioned by police and released.Yant and his fellow officers were searching the house for marijuana, according to a search warrant.Pearce spoke to *FOX5* Sunday, admitting that her boyfriend used drugs but saying that he was not a threat.Trevon was a recreational smoker. He smoked weed, marijuana. Thats what he did, she said. They didnt have to kill him.Pearce, 20, is nine months pregnant with the couples child."We were supposed to get married next year, plan a black and white affair, she said. He was all I ever knew, we were gonna make it."



first notice the poor quality of fox's research and presentation, noting how before they speak of the innocent victims, they tell you more about our hero of the day "10-year veteran of the police department" Brian Yant.

"police said Yant was confronted in a bathroom by 21-year-old Trevon Cole"

tell me how the officer was in their bathroom, i assume taking a piss, when the homeowner broke in and assaulted the officer, and how he fired a SINGLE SHOT killing Trevon... (headshot for pot? or no medical assistance? or what? imo 1st degree murder, negligent homicide. stack up as many charges as you can against the entire district and what ever judge was responsible for allowing this "narcotics unit" (marijuana is NOT a narcotic) to unabashedly assualt this families 4th amendment right leading to their great loss. imo give them the life in prison or the death sentence.

im sorry for my sarcasm.. this situation disgusts me, and anybody who would rather have innocents murdered in cold blood by "officers of the law" and make a quick buck than have our constitutional and god given liberties reinstated, should be on the receiving end of this deal


LEGALIZE IT YOUR VOTE MIGHT ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE


----------



## Trailer Park Boy (Jun 20, 2010)

hockey4848 said:


> It is a step I would not feel comfortable taking. I am extremely well read on the topic and I could sit all day and explain to you how legalization will fail miserably at state levels. If you are a california resident, do not vote yes on it being fully legalized because you think mj is a non lethal plant, that has potential to raise your struggling state some tax money. Vote no because you enjoy the schools/hospitals/parks/libraries/roads you currently have. If the republicans ever get back into office (who hate marijuana) will simply pull all federal aid from cali.
> 
> I could go deep into the economics of it but the tax revenue people are saying could be raised from legalization is false. The governments estimates on how big the MJ business really is, is 10-120 billion a year. A very arguably number. A number devised from seizures and things like that. But who really knows. So one would automatically think, "wow put a 30% tax on it and the gov can raise easily in the billions." This is however wrong because these money #'s are drawn from current black market pricing, which is high due the risk involved for the manufactures/dealers/transporters etc. Frankly there is already a large tax on marijuana, the tax of getting caught. You take that illegal aspect away from it and it is just like any other plant. And any other legal consumable plant we have in our lives is rather cheap. A head of lettuce is maybe a pound and it costs $2.99. And unfortunately marijuana users do not use all that much product compared to other heavily taxed items. A heavy smoker may smoke 20-40 cigarettes a day. A heavy MJ user will smoke a fraction of this amount. The "100 billion dollar" marijuana industry people in favor of legalization for tax generating purposes are dreaming, this is the illegal market of $3-5,000 a pound marijuana. When legalized this number will automatically drop drastically.
> 
> My point is, heavy taxes will have to be applied to marijuana for it to make any real money. Which will in turn drive the black market farther underground and ultimately thrive.


So I take it you are more than likely one of the CA medical caregivers who stands to lose mucho dolares when everyone can grow their own plants in Cali legally...I see, it WOULD really hurt your business to see it drop down to, oh, say $150 an OZ, when you Cali caregivers are charging as much as street level for product right now... 

Russ Bellville of the NORML blog (Radical Russ) has already brought it to everyone's attention that 2 big time caregivers (Canna Care in Sacto is one of them) that these big dispensary owners are donating big money to have the Nov. ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational use defeated, and has asked people to boycott said dispensary's. 

We know ALL about you Cali caregivers out here in MT. Two of the biggest in our state (who came out here from Cali, by the way to make BIG money are on the MT. state legislative advisory committee; and have pretty much convinced the legislature and Governor Schweitzer that:

"Things are out of hand, out of control here in MT" and "There should only be perhaps 6 regional caregivers for the whole state under the direct regulation of the state"; that: 
"marijuana is serious medecine for serious illness", also: "patients cannot be entrusted to grow their own medecine; so it should only be legal for large, state licensed and regulated caregivers to grow; as otherwise medical marijuana will end up on the black market"...

Fuck them. They want to be the only ones legally allowed to grow it (the big boys from Cali who came out here w/ big money to make big money). 

They will have a monopoly on the MM market here in MT if this shit goes through next Feb.; and patients who cannot afford these fuckers $400 an OZ weed will be criminals and thrown in jail just for a few fucking plants; as it will be illegal for patients to grow.

Thanks to these greedy caregiver assholes who moved out here from Cali to make a buck off us after Obama called off the Feds.

I can think of one; and only one reason WHY you would be against legalization in Cali...Your a DISPENERY OWNER/ CAREGIVER WHO LIVES IN CALI!

I notice you only have two posts here; I'll bet your going to every 420 forum on the web and spewing this shit...

Everyone in Cali., ignore this guy and PLEASE VOTE FOR LEGALIZATION! NORML AND MPP RECCOMENDS ALL CALI RESIDENTS DO VOTE YES ON LEGALIZATION! Other states will fall after people see that marijuana is NOT a weed with roots in hell and is much, much safer than alcohol.

thank you all, and good night.


----------



## Trailer Park Boy (Jun 20, 2010)

By the way, top grade medical marijuana is down to $200 an oz here; before Obama called off the feds it was $400.

When Obama was elected there were only 2000 MM cardholders in MT., we are swiftly approaching 20,000 cardholders at this point in time. Estimates are that there will be 35,000 cardholders by the time the Legislature meets next Feb. for: 
"Much needed changes to our MM law" (what Gov. Schcweitzer says)...We do not want more restrictions added to our law such as those suggested by the 'state MM advisory council' and WE WILL BE MARCHING ON THE STATE HOUSE IN FEBRUARY! Fuck them.


----------



## KlosetKing (Jun 20, 2010)

yep indeed. i was watching the news the other night and they were saying that they were receiving something like 1000 applications a month. to give schweizer some credit though, hes been putting it off for a long time. there are dickheads in this state that have been pushing for changes since it passed, because they are stuck in the past. welcome to MT. hillbillies, mullets, and a bunch of close minded republicans (i use the term republicans here, not conservatives) that are stuck in their train of thought because just like the rest of America, they have been brainwashed by the government, media, and hell even their parents.

-edit- at least we still have Knievel Days! woot!


----------



## Hogg (Jul 6, 2010)

People going to prison for a simple non-harmful plant..that is enough of a reason to legalize it. the only people not wanting it legalized are the lie-mongers and dealers. I say eff your living get a new job.


----------



## kamonra (Jul 7, 2010)

your right about the inflated #'s .. but it will make a lot of money through legalization because now people would go buy this stuff freely ... most growers would probably get lazy and buy it from the supermarket instead of going through the pain of growing ....and if we had companies perfecting it then we would have some many strains available to choose from we would be in smoke heaven yes it would destroy the black market but who cares .. im tired of paying inflated prices for it any way ... the point u make about lettuce is the reason why it is not a drug but a controlled substance ... by labeling it a control substance they could now make it illegal ..... just think the government could actually say its illegal to eat tomatoes , or apples ,


----------



## whiteflour (Jul 7, 2010)

kamonra said:


> your right about the inflated #'s .. but it will make a lot of money through legalization because now people would go buy this stuff freely ... most growers would probably get lazy and buy it from the supermarket instead of going through the pain of growing ....and if we had companies perfecting it then we would have some many strains available to choose from we would be in smoke heaven yes it would destroy the black market but who cares .. im tired of paying inflated prices for it any way ... the point u make about lettuce is the reason why it is not a drug but a controlled substance ... by labeling it a control substance they could now make it illegal ..... just think the government could actually say its illegal to eat tomatoes , or apples ,


Who are these companies you speak of? Do you honestly think a FEDERALLY controlled company is going to move into california and break federal law? You ever thought to consider why they don't have pre-rolled pre-packaged cigarettes in Amsterdam or the like? Maybe that has something to do with "joint sized" Capri cigarettes and the machine patents to make them? If you wan't prerolled cigarettes they'll be coming to you mixed with tobacco, and on old slow machines with little production ability.

If you EVER want to see this commercialized North Carolina has to get behind it. The tobacco companies aren't going to move to roll a few joints. The market share isn't there and California can't afford to offer them incentives. Now if they can grow it, roll it, and sell it in the south where it's agriculturally and economically feasible, you'll see that day a lot sooner.


----------

