Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > General Discussion

General Discussion Topics of a general nature not relative to any other specific section here

WELCOME BACK!.............NEW EFFORTS AHEAD..........CHECK BACK SOON.........UPDATE YOUR EMAIL FOR NEW NOTIFICATIONS.........
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-31-2009, 08:42 AM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,068
Default Calif. lawmaker holds hearing on legalizing pot

Calif. lawmaker holds hearing on legalizing pot


Quote:
By MARCUS WOHLSEN, The Associated Press
October 29, 2009

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — No tie-dye was on display at a standing-room only hearing held by a California lawmaker on Wednesday in a bid to get his marijuana legalization bill taken seriously.

Instead, suits and sober discussion were the rule at the state Capitol as Assemblyman Tom Ammiano presided over what his office said was the first legislative consideration of the issue since California banned the drug in 1913.

Both sides of the debate were heard, but Ammiano has long had his mind made up.

Before the hearing, the San Francisco Democrat and former comedian called the criminalization of marijuana a failed policy that denies the state significant revenue. He said the bill could put the state in a position to set the national agenda on pot.

"I think we have a real shot at it, particularly in the context of it being in some ways bigger than California," Ammiano said.

His bill would tax and regulate marijuana in the state much like alcohol. Adults 21 and older could legally possess, grow and sell marijuana. The state would charge a $50-per-ounce fee and a 9 percent tax on retail sales.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he does not support legalization but caused a stir in May when he said he was open to debate on the issue.

At least one poll showed a slight majority of Californians would support a tax-and-regulate scheme for pot, but the bill's chances remain unclear. Skeptics have questioned whether the state could truly enforce a tax on marijuana and whether users and sellers would want to expose themselves to possible federal prosecution.

"You're going to create a record of some sort," said Assemblyman Curt Hagman, a San Bernardino County Republican. "You can't force me to self-incriminate myself."

Supporters of Ammiano's bill noted the state already collects taxes from medical marijuana dispensaries with little federal interference.

Legal experts on both sides also agreed at the informational hearing that nothing in current federal law can prevent California from stripping criminal penalties for marijuana from its own books.

"If California decides to legalize marijuana, there's nothing in the Constitution that stands in its way," said Tamar Todd, a staff attorney for the pro-legalization Drug Policy Alliance.

Speakers at the hearing argued a number of issues, including whether legalization would increase or decrease crime and help or hurt children.

State tax collectors presented an estimate that Ammiano's bill could generate nearly $1.4 billion in tax revenue. They cautioned, however, that the figure depended on several untested assumptions about how rates of use and prices would change following possible legalization.

Rosalie Pacula, director of drug policy research at the nonpartisan Rand Corp., said data on the economics of marijuana were "insufficient on which to base any sound policy."

Pacula said a failed effort in Canada to increase taxes on cigarettes showed that unless taxes had a minimal effect on prevailing prices, "you create the economic incentive for the black market to remain."

As the legalization movement has gained momentum, organized opposition outside law enforcement groups has been sparse. Still, several anti-pot protesters spoke passionately during and after the hearing.

Marijuana use is commonplace among young people in his Sacramento neighborhood, said Bishop Ron Allen, president of the International Faith Based Coalition, an anti-drug religious group.

Legalizing marijuana to tax it would help fill state coffers at the expense of its kids, he said.

"It's blood money, that's it," he said.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-31-2009, 04:33 PM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default

Let's see where this one goes. I'm not for this or against it. All I know is what we're doing now isn't working.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-10-2009, 09:17 AM
Twoller Twoller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,296
Default

Quote:
....

Speakers at the hearing argued a number of issues, including whether legalization would increase or decrease crime and help or hurt children.

State tax collectors presented an estimate that Ammiano's bill could generate nearly $1.4 billion in tax revenue. They cautioned, however, that the figure depended on several untested assumptions about how rates of use and prices would change following possible legalization.

Rosalie Pacula, director of drug policy research at the nonpartisan Rand Corp., said data on the economics of marijuana were "insufficient on which to base any sound policy."

Pacula said a failed effort in Canada to increase taxes on cigarettes showed that unless taxes had a minimal effect on prevailing prices, "you create the economic incentive for the black market to remain."

As the legalization movement has gained momentum, organized opposition outside law enforcement groups has been sparse. Still, several anti-pot protesters spoke passionately during and after the hearing.

Marijuana use is commonplace among young people in his Sacramento neighborhood, said Bishop Ron Allen, president of the International Faith Based Coalition, an anti-drug religious group.

Legalizing marijuana to tax it would help fill state coffers at the expense of its kids, he said.

....
Since it would no longer be a criminal offence to possess cannabis, the crime rate would go down, obviously. But this would have the effect of freeing up law enforcement for other activities more deserving of law enforcement. By stripping away the black market, the extremely charged social networks that drive the black market would fall away and distribution to young people especially would fall off dramatically.

The notion that legal marijuana sales would be some kind of cash cow to the state is false. Cannabis is too easy to grow and home growers are already a well established institution among users now. Once it becomes legal to grow cannabis yourself, not too many people will be buying the taxed stuff even though it is legal to buy.

There is bound to remain a marginal black market in the stuff, especially since it is so easy to grow and process and the legal stuff seems to be bound to be taxed so high. But this will be easy to police and fines, not jail time, will easily discipline transgressors. Those caught selling to minors would fall under law enforcement the same way those caught selling them alcohol or tobacco.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved