California Governor Signs Marijuana Decriminalization Bill

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

The only reason I can figure it's not legal and taxed is because of one simple thing - well, maybe two; depending on how you look at it.

1. No one can tell you how much THC is enough to get you impaired. Alcohol - known, and done. THC - I've never seen anything like that sort of research.

2. No good, reliable road side test to see if you've smoked too much to be able to drive. Alcohol - done that 20 ways from Sunday.

Solve these two issues and it will be legal in 35 states tomorrow and 48 before Christmas.

Perhaps we should just go back to a more Constitutional standard. If someone isn't driving poorly, then let them alone. The most obvious evidence of someone who is too impaired to drive is, indeed, poor driving. SFST's and breath testing devices have been shown to be a sham. You'll also notice that the human body evolved markedly in about fifty years or so. That's how long it took for the AMA to decide that a person isn't impaired at .15 BAC, but, actually, at .08.

They just make it up as they go along, man. When they want more power, they just enact more laws. Our judiciary is too often complicit with this.

Correct me where I am about to be wrong, but a drug test can detect if a person has used a pot in one form or another for something like 28 days give or take. However it is detecting trace amounts which is well below the amount to impair a person.

I am sure with some research they could determine the impair area to test for the amount of THC. I bet with some effort they could even get it in the form a breath test, much in the same way they test for alcohol.

The variables are significant. Actually determining "impairment" with marijuana will be a huge mess.

I'm not aware of any way they could possibly test your breath for evidence of marijuana intoxication. THC and the various cannabinoids don't evaporate out of solution and pass out of your lungs during respiration. There are various saliva tests and finger prick tests. Perhaps an entirely new bureaucracy could evolve, it's sole purpose being to create an entirely new class of obnoxious, intrusive roadside encounters with government agents.

One hang up on the taxing issue they probably have is how do you tax something that everybody can grow in their backyard. If you had a small patch on your property, are you going to the "revenuer" to self report?

This is significant. The dope war is about control. So is taxation. How free can we really be?

[Moped]

The reason they don't want to legalize is POWER! Look at all the MONEY that gets spent on the war on drugs every year. The people that get to spend all that MONEY don't want to legalize it, because they lose their POWER! Therefore, they push for more MONEY and harsher sentences and new technology and more POWER! It's a never ending cycle. Even the drug lords don't want to see it legalized, because they'd lose their POWER and MONEY, just like the Law Enforcement Officials in this this country.

[Raoul]

Side effects are happy, sleepy, and hungry. if you arent asleep youll be eating not driving LOL

And if you are driving you'll be the car on I40 doing 27 mph.

[Il Duce]

I wasnt being serious there lol. i was quoting Katt Williams

[Guest Letereat!]

The reason they don't want to legalize is POWER! Look at all the MONEY that gets spent on the war on drugs every year. The people that get to spend all that MONEY don't want to legalize it, because they lose their POWER! Therefore, they push for more MONEY and harsher sentences and new technology and more POWER! It's a never ending cycle. Even the drug lords don't want to see it legalized, because they'd lose their POWER and MONEY, just like the Law Enforcement Officials in this this country.

Well said. I have come to see the word Government as synonymous with; control of people and their means of survival and manipulation of the facts. Coupled with an attitude that does not respect the wishes of the governed.

Edited October 3, 2010 by Letereat!

[mikegideon]

And if you are driving you'll be the car on I40 doing 27 mph.

Yep. the more stoned they get, the slower they get. Riding with a pot head doesn't scare me at all.

[Guest BEARMAN]

I'd say alcohol abuse is far, far worse than smokin' a joint and getting behind the wheel...the facts bear this out, test, or no test. fwiw.

Legalize it, tax it, and be done with it. imo.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I think legalization or de-criminalization of most "victimless crimes" vices would be good. Though it is best not to have any vices.

There are many complications. Pot doesn't impair driving as much as alcohol. HOWEVER pot strongly potentiates alcohol. Most substance users have no objection to mixing drugs. There are not many purists who only consume one favorite chemical. I am too lazy to look it up, and I don't recall the exact numbers. There were driving simulator studies done quite awhile ago. The findings were that 1 or 2 beers + pot can impair driving skill as much as many beers alone with no pot.

If they legalize pot and intend to enforce drunk driving law, we would need a relatively consistent test to measure "total intoxication" of alcohol + cannabis concentration. Otherwise some extremely impaired "pot + alcohol" drivers might skate because their relatively low blood alcochol concentration would be legal.

There are different kinds of pot with different effects. And pot affects some folks different than others. Not everybody gets sleepy and stupid. I have known folks who get alert and energetic on pot. Carl Sagan was a pot head. Maybe he would have been even more smart sober, but the pot didn't seem to slow him down too much.

Of course, perhaps that is irrelevant, because all drugs affect people differently. There are happy drunks versus mean drunks, for instance, but that doesn't mean we wage a war on alcohol. It would be fantastic if the mean drunks would voluntarily avoid alcohol, of course.

Regardless of the complications, prohibition just doesn't work. Though I would prefer that people would not abuse drugs, the war on drugs is un-winnable. Unless maybe the police just start executing intoxicated people wherever they are found. That doesn't sound like a good solution.

Maybe a war on drugs could work if done the right way. After WWII, there were millions of doses of amphetamine in Japan, from the war effort, and the Japanese took lots of amphetamines to work hard rebuilding. It became a big problem. Rather than 20 year mandatory sentences, they incarcerated every speed freak for 1 year every time they caught one. And it mostly eliminated the problem within a pretty short time. The Japanese liked being free and working, better than they liked amphetamine. And going to jail was considered a shameful thing.

In our culture, and with a substantial abuser population who do not have good socialization, perhaps something that simple wouldn't work at all. Maybe our druggies would just keep going back to drugs every time they get released from jail.

[Guest Joey]

Beer and wine are taxed and people can legally make this on their own. Yet most people just go to the store and buy what they want. I doubt that pot would be any different.

You are probably right about that.

Perhaps we should just go back to a more Constitutional standard. If someone isn't driving poorly, then let them alone.

...

This is significant. The dope war is about control. So is taxation. How free can we really be?

I completely agree.

And that leads me to the point I want to make: Legalize it but don't tax it. If the government gets a new source of revenue it's only going to lead to more government.

[Dolomite_supafly]

One hang up on the taxing issue they probably have is how do you tax something that everybody can grow in their backyard. If you had a small patch on your property, are you going to the "revenuer" to self report?

People would always say this because it is easily grown it would be impossible to tax it. And it is true, no way is someone going to report it in the same way people don't report internet purchases (which are required) and pay their usage tax. Here are the laws on usage tax in Tennessee.

I have thought long and hard about this for a very, very long time. I have always wondered how to tax a product anyone can realistically grow themselves.

The best solution I have come up with is not to tax the product but tax the person who is going to be using the product, similar to a driver’s license for those who drive. Make it some sort of state issued ID or license making it legal for the individual to possess marijuana. I wouldn't make it an endorsement on your DL because that would imply it was OK to smoke when drive. It would need to be some sort of issued ID similar to what California uses now for medical marijuana users except a license to use similar to a driver's license. Make no distinction between medical MJ license and a regular MJ license. The only difference would be the fees paid to the state while obtaining the MJ license.

If you are caught with MJ but without the required license it should be no jail time but financial penalties. Now if you refuse to pay your financial penalties then it would be the same as any other ticket you refuse to pay.

Make the fines 5x the cost to get the ID or license. Also, make it no worse if you get caught 100 times as long as you pay your fines or get a license (No point system). No sense in sending them to jail to cost us money when leaving them free will likely create revenue when they buy more MJ either with or without the required license.

Create a legalized supply system similar to how firearms or alcohol are done today. An individual must have a license to posses MJ, a higher license would be required to sell to individuals and yet a higher license to manufacture the MJ. Price the licenses exponentially higher and higher. Perhaps an individual's license would cost $50 annually to possess MJ. A seller would be required to pay $500 annually to be able to legally sell the product. And a manufacturer has to pay $5,000 annually to be able to make it. And the MJ can only be sold to the one below you in the chain, makers can only sell to sellers/dealers and sellers/dealers can only sell to individuals with a valid MJ license.

The same tax rules apply for the sale of the MJ as the sale of anything else, no additional "sin" tax. The person buying the MJ will be required to show their ID, the same way we do for alchohol sales.

And just for the record, I have never smoked MJ. I can’t because I have broken out in hives every time I have been exposed to it. Because of this I fell I am allergic and may cause me some serious problems if I did smoke it.

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just to make things clear. This is not a liberal agenda, its just plain old common damn sense.

Well, it probably is a liberal agenda, because common sense also should include

raising your kids right. The pot is possibly not the problem, but the people using it.

Our moral and just society is being destroyed every day by fringe arguments like

legalizing pot. Laws sometimes are put on the books because the actions of others

and the methods that might be causing those actions caused harm to others. Just

legalizing pot won't necessarily fix anything. Taxing a moral behaviour is just as

wrong. It gives more authority to the 'state' and less 'liberty' to the individual.

If you completely legitimize pot, without acceptable moral behaviour, where will

it stop? Morphine? Those cute little Lortabs?

Some of those laws are in place because some people can't act right in society.

Maybe it's not the pot, after all, but I'd say the problem isn't fixed, yet, and don't

be using taxing something else as an excuse to give the government more power.

They like that.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Those are good ideas Dolomite.

An alternative would be only to tax what is sold, and only at conventional sales tax rate. That is often the idea implied by 'de-criminalization' rather than 'legalization'. The sales tax collectors are not to be messed with. A retailer can slack on his IRS obligations easier than he can slack on his sales tax obligations. If a retailer gets arrears on sales tax, they get downright nasty about it.

If they tax what a person grows in his own back yard, next thing you know they would want to tax maters and zucchini you grow in your own back yard. If you grow your own food, it deprives the state of grocery sales tax, so its only fair that they tax your home-grown food to make up the shortfall, right?

And just for the record, I have never smoked MJ. I can’t because I have broken out in hives every time I have been exposed to it. Because of this I fell I am allergic and may cause me some serious problems if I did smoke it.

Maybe pot allergies are pretty common. I'm allergic to it as well.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Lester Weevils

[mikegideon]

They're not fringe arguments in this case. We are throwing people into prison for something that our last 3 presidents have done.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

More rationalization, though. Encourage bad behaviour and then tax it?

Do something about the crime, seal that border and deal with the illegals

would do much more than legalizing pot will. Do you really think the problem

will go away overnight by legalizing it?

What I find unbelievable is that anyone would think about giving the government

another taxing authority, thinking that will solve a problem. They haven't gotten

the other taxing authorities right since the Civil War, and it was a temporary one.

Taxing someone is the same thing as a government sponsored crime. You give

up individual rights the same as when you make something illegal. Just nothing

gets solved. Getting rid of a moral and just society only kills society by downplaying

morals and justice. So, which one is better? Another tax? Or a moral, just and

capitalist society which rewards good behaviour and punishes bad?

[mikegideon]

You're getting stuck on the wrong issue. It's ok to imprison somebody over something so minor, but taxing it like liquor is wrong? By all means... lets fix it with a military deployment.

[Guest Archminister01]

Ill just say this. Alcohol is legal and causes more trouble than it is worth. I am not saying make it illegal, because I enjoy an occasional drink. Marijuana on the other hand is not an antagonistic drug. Is still not a major precursor to crimes and I believe that it should take its place right along side of alcohol. Thats just my two cents. Lets face it. Those who chose to use it, and its a much larger majority of people than some would like to admit, will continue to use. Why not make it a revenue generating item instead of a tax on the legal system. I am sure that it would solve the issues going on in AZ, because that is solely based upon bringing drugs and drug selling individuals into this country. Maybe I am far off base but in my mind it does not make sense to keep it illegal.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

As Said Before:

Tax It.... Legalize It...

Just like Cigarettes on the shelf at the Gas Station...

If they want to make it at home.... Let them... I don't have to purchase a "Beer License" to make some in my freezer....

If they're selling it on the street... They won't be for long, because it'll be cheaper in the store.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Do they still throw people in prison for a bag of pot? I doubt anyone with an ounce

of pot gets to prison, nowadays. Taxing a chain of distribution from Mexico or other

country doesn't fix anything. It only allows a government to grab some more money,

while solving nothing.

No, I think those people that get caught with an ounce of pot get taxed when they get

caught. Corrupt people keep the pot and other illicit drugs flowing. They are found in

government and the private economy. Society will ultimately decide. I just want want

society to make the right choice. Taxing something doesn't make it right, but it does

condone bad behaviour. I never said I had the only answer, but if you just rationalize

behaviour away and tax it, what have you done? Taxing liquor is in the same category,

as far as I'm concerned. It is accepted, so let's do it with pot? Not logical, just more

rationalization.

[mikegideon]

Do they still throw people in prison for a bag of pot? I doubt anyone with an ounce

of pot gets to prison, nowadays. Taxing a chain of distribution from Mexico or other

country doesn't fix anything. It only allows a government to grab some more money,

while solving nothing.

No, I think those people that get caught with an ounce of pot get taxed when they get

caught. Corrupt people keep the pot and other illicit drugs flowing. They are found in

government and the private economy. Society will ultimately decide. I just want want

society to make the right choice. Taxing something doesn't make it right, but it does

condone bad behaviour. I never said I had the only answer, but if you just rationalize

behaviour away and tax it, what have you done? Taxing liquor is in the same category,

as far as I'm concerned. It is accepted, so let's do it with pot? Not logical, just more

rationalization.

You're missing some stuff. You need to hang out with more musicians . The best weed is grown right here in the US. No need to import anything from Mexico. The tobacco industry would be perfect for distribution.

Legalizing pot won't fix the drug problem, but it's a step in the right direction. Not suggesting they legalize anything else.

EDIT: And yes, they threw Tommy Chong in prison for selling a bong to someone in PA.

Edited October 4, 2010 by mikegideon

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Did they quit seizing property related to drug crimes? You know, buy a bag of pot then forfeit that brand new car?

Or for that matter, seizing cash "just because"? Though we have no other evidence, we're gonna keep that $1000 we found in your pocket, because obviously the only reason somebody would have more than spare change in their pocket would be to buy drugs?

What about the cases when plainclothes drug agents bust into the wrong address with no-knock warrants, the homeowner defends against home invasion, and the homeowner gets executed on the spot? Or the many cases of beloved family dawgs getting shot by police just because they bark at surprise intruders?

There are MANY abuses which accompany the failed war on drugs.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's another sore subject: Property seizure laws. Another government power

that has no basis in justice. They do it related to much more than pot, though.

Hey guys. It's not that I'm totally against pot. I don't care anything about it. I do care

about how much we give up to the government and how that power is attained.

Taxation kills economies at very little benefit to society. It is the most powerful

tool the progressive has to aid in his battle for income redistribution and tyranny.

If you like that, then let's just tax everything into oblivion and become 'subjects'.

The only thing a tax will do is give the government another reason to tax you

after that.

What was it Reagan said? "Government is not the solution to your problems,

Government is the problem".

Taxing pot won't keep the teenagers from missing school to smoke a joint with

their friends. Hell, just let them smoke it in the classroom and be done with it!

That's where you're headed.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Those are good ideas Dolomite.

An alternative would be only to tax what is sold, and only at conventional sales tax rate. That is often the idea implied by 'de-criminalization' rather than 'legalization'. The sales tax collectors are not to be messed with. A retailer can slack on his IRS obligations easier than he can slack on his sales tax obligations. If a retailer gets arrears on sales tax, they get downright nasty about it.

If they tax what a person grows in his own back yard, next thing you know they would want to tax maters and zucchini you grow in your own back yard. If you grow your own food, it deprives the state of grocery sales tax, so its only fair that they tax your home-grown food to make up the shortfall, right?

Maybe pot allergies are pretty common. I'm allergic to it as well.

Taxing it would probably be a complex issue but it shouldn't be. Pay the sales tax like you would anything else you buy at a store.

As far as someone growing it in their back yard it wouldn't be a problem if they had the "license" to manufacture it.

For those who would never use it just don't pay to get the license to posses MJ.

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I disagree with the idea of selling a bong should get you in violation of a law.

That case was ridiculous from the beginning, and it WAS a case of excessive

lawmaking, intended to make more of us criminals. A tool isn't a drug.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Taxing it would probably be a complex issue but it shouldn't be. Pay the sales tax like you would anything else you buy at a store.

As far as someone growing it in their back yard it wouldn't be a problem if they had the "license" to manufacture it.

For those who would never use it just don't pay to get the license to posses MJ.

Dolomite

Hi Dolomite

That is an interesting twist, because in order to pass constitutional muster, it is how they wrote the law criminalizing pot. At that time, it wasn't considered constitutional just to outright ban the stuff, so they wrote a law requiring tax stamps, and then the govt refuses to issue any stamps. So anybody with pot is a tax evader because he can't buy a stamp.

Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Guest Drewsett]

6.8 AR, I find I agree with you on most things, but I'm going to have to dissent on a couple of things here.

First of all, I don't think that legalization of marijuana would lead to other drugs being legalized. And if it did, I don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing. I have known many people who have gotten hooked on various drugs (meth, heroin, cocaine, etc) who realized they were in trouble, but were too afraid to ask for help from friends and family because of the illegality of it.

As a general rule, we libertarians believe that as long as you aren't hurting anyone else, go right ahead.

Your comment (and I'm paraphrasing) that people don't know how to behave and need to be legislated to...scares me. You can't pick and choose what things to live in a nanny-state about. The moment you start legislating morality you screw yourself, because one groups' morality isn't the same as anothers' and you'll get the whole legislative "trading" phenomenon, where the R's and D's say, "hey, you pass my legislation, I'll pass yours". Next thing you know, the government has its fingers into every aspect of your life. For example...anti-sodomy laws anyone? Pointless.

Most things end up self-regulating themselves anyways. Either the people who overuse break some other law and end up in jail, get some sort of strange disease and die...or (the most common result) wise up and grow up.