Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?

[Top Secret]

I found this article online, I think it's interesting:

Could marijuana be the answer to the economic misery facing California? Democratic State Assembly member Tom Ammiano thinks so. Ammiano introduced legislation last month that would legalize pot and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale (http://perezhilton.com/2009-03-13-headline-of-the-week-weak-374#) — a move that could mean billions for the cash-strapped state. Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion in annual sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity — milk and cream — which brings in $7.3 billion annually, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state's tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion in much-needed revenue a year, offsetting some of the billions in service cuts and spending reductions outlined in the recently approved state budget.


"The state of California is in a very, very precipitous economic plight. It's in the toilet," says Ammiano. "It looks very, very bleak, with layoffs and foreclosures and schools closing or trying to operate four days a week. We have one of the highest rates of unemployment we've ever had. With any revenue ideas people say you have to think outside of the box, you have to be creative, and I feel that the issue of the decriminalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana fits that bill. It's not new, the idea has been around, and the political will may in fact be there to make something happen."



Ammiano may be right. A few days after he introduced the bill, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that states should be able to make their own rules on medical marijuana and that federal raids on pot dispensaries in California would cease. The move signaled a softening of the hard-line approach previous administrations have had to medicinal pot use. The nomination of Gil Kerlikowske as the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy may also signal a softer federal line on marijuana. If he is confirmed as the so-called Drug Czar, Kerlikowske will bring with him experience as police chief of Seattle, where he made it clear that going after people for possessing marijuana was not a priority of his force.


California was one of the first states in the nation to legalize medical marijuana in 1996. Currently, $200 million in medical marijuana sales are subject to sales tax. If passed, the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education (http://perezhilton.com/2009-03-13-headline-of-the-week-weak-374#) Act (AB 390) would give California control of pot in a manner similar to alcohol, while prohibiting its purchase to citizens under age 21. (The bill has been referred to the California State Assembly's Public Safety and Health Committees; Ammiano says it could take up to a year before it comes to a vote for passage.) State revenues would be derived from a $50 per ounce levy on retail sales of marijuana and sales taxes. By adopting the law, California could become a model for other states. As Ammiano put it: "How California goes, the country goes."
Despite the projected and much-needed revenue, opponents say legalizing pot will only add to social woes. "The last thing we need is yet another mind-altering substance to be legalized," says John Lovell, lobbyist for the California Peace Officers' Association. "We have enough problems with alcohol and abuse of pharmaceutical products: do we really need to add yet another mind-altering substance to the array?" Lovell says the easy availability of the drug will lead to a surge in its use, much like what happened when alcohol was allowed to be sold in venues other than liquor stores in some states.


Joel W. Hay, professor of Pharmaceutical Economics at USC, also foresees harm if the bill passes. "Marijuana is a drug that clouds people's judgment. It affects their ability to concentrate and react and it certainly has impacts on third parties," says Hay, who has written on the societal costs of drug abuse. "It's one more drug that will add to the toll on society. All we have to do is look at the two legalized drugs, tobacco and alcohol, and look at the carnage that they've caused. [Marijuana] is a dangerous drug and it causes bad outcomes for both the people who use it and for the people who are in their way at work or other activities." He adds: "There are probably some responsible people who can handle marijuana but there are lots of people who can't, and it has an enormous negative impact on them, their family (http://perezhilton.com/2009-03-13-headline-of-the-week-weak-374#) and loved ones."



In response, retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray, a longtime proponent of legalization, estimates that legalizing pot and thus ceasing to arrest, prosecute and imprison non-violent offenders could save (http://perezhilton.com/2009-03-13-headline-of-the-week-weak-374#) the state an additional $1 billion a year. "We couldn't make this drug any more available if we tried," he says. "Not only do we have those problems, along with glamorizing it by making it illegal, but we also have the crime and corruption that go along with it." He adds, "Unfortunately, every society in the history of mankind has had some form of mind-altering, sometimes addictive substances to use, to misuse, abuse or get addicted to. Get used to it. They're here to stay. So, let's try to reduce those harms and right now we couldn't do it worse if we tried."

[OxiContinKing]

Legal marijuana could help rescue the states economy, the countrys economy, and the world economy.

'nuff said.

[oxy kid]

Legal marijuana could help rescue the states economy, the countrys economy, and the world economy.

'nuff said.


I'm with you, I'd would rescue the entire US's economy and eventually the whole world.

[skabbo]

"[Marijuana] is a dangerous drug and it causes bad outcomes for both the people who use it and for the people who are in their way at work or other activities." - Joel W Hay

[Citation needed]

[duck]

I'm with you, I'd would rescue the entire US's economy and eventually the whole world.

I hope it doesn't get legalized. I think it would ruin it.

[JonnyMohawk]

I hope it doesn't get legalized. I think it would ruin it.

Thats selfish.

[Top Secret]

I must say the legalization and government regulation of marijuana would help generate billions of dollars for the economy. It would also save the DEA a lot of money because they would no longer be authorized to raid innocent grow operations and medicinal marijuana clubs.

[losangeleslifer]

I hope it doesn't get legalized. I think it would ruin it.

Duck, my man. The worse part of this post is you not explaining how.:confused:

[OxiContinKing]

I hope it doesn't get legalized. I think it would ruin it.

the economy or the weed?

LOL.

please explain, duck.

[duck]

Duck, my man. The worse part of this post is you not explaining how.:confused:

I'll let this one develop a little bit before I elaborate, I just wanted to stir the pot a bit. I'm certainly not 100% on board the legalization bus though, that is for sure.

[poonwhalla]

I'll let this one develop a little bit before I elaborate, I just wanted to stir the pot a bit. I'm certainly not 100% on board the legalization bus though, that is for sure.

lame

[duck]

lame

lol, sorry I don't appease you poonwalla, but I saw this thread going in one very straight path, and I think it's important for advocates of drugs to think about the advocacy of legalization. But, I'll concede.

Whenever we as drug supporters hear the word "legalization," this conjures up images of a drug utopia where all of us users are fully stocked with large quantities of quality marijuana, all at a reasonable price--and, as icing on the cake, a more robust economy. Another big thing advocates feel good about is the endowment of greater rights and freedom. My problem is, is it really going to be more freedom?

There's three ways we can forward with marijuana legalization:
1) leave the laws alone
2) legalize and regulate
3) reduce the criminalization

Between 2 and 3, I think advocates typically jump at number 2, because it seems to benefit us more. But, I don't know if that is necessarily true. If we do legalize it, it will be heavily regulated and taxed by the government.

The number one compliant I hear on this board is with the regulation of pharmaceutical drugs--FDA and DEA, specifically. As discussed and propagated numerous times and to a level reaching absurdity, the FDA and DEA have been attacked from all angles based on their mismanagement of pharmaceutical drugs. What makes us think that the government is going to manage marijuana well? What does the government manage well?

Marijuana current state in America is the last of a true free market, owned exclusively by the people. Sure, there are pseudo-corporations, cartels and what not; but, for the most part, it is a true free market economy. We buy and sell drugs, free of taxation, and prices are totally set by how much they supply, and how much we demand. It is a mathematical law that this will produce the best allocation of marijuana. If the government were to become involved, they would control prices, and the market would be warped, and our prices would get fucked. The suppliers would no longer be making maximum profit as they are now, and we would no longer be getting as much consumer surplus as we are now.

A likely objection to this--but wouldn't the government be able to produce large amounts of weed and sell it for cheap? Yes. That is true, cheaper than it is now even. But we must think critically about why this is true.

The reason we would have better prices compared to right now with government regulation of marijuana is because of the criminalization of possession and distribution. These are barriers to people entering the marijuana market, a sort of negative incentive that drives the price up. If there weren't such strict laws for the possessing and distributing, both the buyers and sellers of marijuana would benefit greater than if the government regulated, per mathematical law.

Based on this premise, the conclusion that follows (at least in favor of the advocates :)), is to decriminalize marijuana to an extent, but not completely. My ideal scenario would be make it virtually legal to carry an oz. or less. "But what about the sellers?! they still will get fucked!!" No, no they would not. 90% (arbitrary) of drug busts are from people ratting. With the decriminalization of possession, the incentive to rat goes way down. This does not remove 100% of the threat of criminalization, and thus does not make it a true free market, and the price will still go up because of the risk---BUT, I truly believe that the price would not rise beyond that of a federal and state tax, plus government pricing manipulation.

Sorry for the novel, it's a complicated and often over-simplified subject. What do you guys think? I may be completely wrong, I'm 100% open to argument.

[OxiContinKing]

Im gonna go grab a soda and some popcorn and watch this...

I think its about to get interesting...

very, very valid points duck...

[digby]

What I would really wonder about is how legalization would effect the growing of plants. In the legal marijuana states, you can grow 3 or 4 plants for each person receiving medical m/j. I can't see that going away any time soon - if you can grow it now when it is illegal, they can hardly make it illegal to grow it after it becomes decriminalized and/or legal. Providers to patients can each grow 3 or 4 plants each too. The only reason you don't have more people doing it now is because they are worried about all the hassles associated with it. If you remove them, seems you would have a lot of people growing green. :)

As far as the taxing and licensing, I have learned to never under-estimate the greed this country is capable of. More than likely, you will have the pharmaceutical giants bidding on the licensing rites and then refining marijuana into pill and liquid form. And all this for big bucks. The companies that can charge $5 a pill for something they make for hundreds to the dollar controlling the grass industry is a bit scary to me. I mean, grass and poppies aren't really all that different for our purposes here.

[losangeleslifer]

Ok, good points. Now just cite your source of info for your *novel* Mr. Steinback.

[SeVeN]

In one word NO. It could help, but we are fucked. Sorry to despair but its what I think is the truth.

[KiloByte]

lol, sorry I don't appease you poonwalla, but I saw this thread going in one very straight path, and I think it's important for advocates of drugs to think about the advocacy of legalization. But, I'll concede.

Whenever we as drug supporters hear the word "legalization," this conjures up images of a drug utopia where all of us users are fully stocked with large quantities of quality marijuana, all at a reasonable price--and, as icing on the cake, a more robust economy. Another big thing advocates feel good about is the endowment of greater rights and freedom. My problem is, is it really going to be more freedom?

There's three ways we can forward with marijuana legalization:
1) leave the laws alone
2) legalize and regulate
3) reduce the criminalization

Between 2 and 3, I think advocates typically jump at number 2, because it seems to benefit us more. But, I don't know if that is necessarily true. If we do legalize it, it will be heavily regulated and taxed by the government.

The number one compliant I hear on this board is with the regulation of pharmaceutical drugs--FDA and DEA, specifically. As discussed and propagated numerous times and to a level reaching absurdity, the FDA and DEA have been attacked from all angles based on their mismanagement of pharmaceutical drugs. What makes us think that the government is going to manage marijuana well? What does the government manage well?

Marijuana current state in America is the last of a true free market, owned exclusively by the people. Sure, there are pseudo-corporations, cartels and what not; but, for the most part, it is a true free market economy. We buy and sell drugs, free of taxation, and prices are totally set by how much they supply, and how much we demand. It is a mathematical law that this will produce the best allocation of marijuana. If the government were to become involved, they would control prices, and the market would be warped, and our prices would get fucked. The suppliers would no longer be making maximum profit as they are now, and we would no longer be getting as much consumer surplus as we are now.

A likely objection to this--but wouldn't the government be able to produce large amounts of weed and sell it for cheap? Yes. That is true, cheaper than it is now even. But we must think critically about why this is true.

The reason we would have better prices compared to right now with government regulation of marijuana is because of the criminalization of possession and distribution. These are barriers to people entering the marijuana market, a sort of negative incentive that drives the price up. If there weren't such strict laws for the possessing and distributing, both the buyers and sellers of marijuana would benefit greater than if the government regulated, per mathematical law.

Based on this premise, the conclusion that follows (at least in favor of the advocates :)), is to decriminalize marijuana to an extent, but not completely. My ideal scenario would be make it virtually legal to carry an oz. or less. "But what about the sellers?! they still will get fucked!!" No, no they would not. 90% (arbitrary) of drug busts are from people ratting. With the decriminalization of possession, the incentive to rat goes way down. This does not remove 100% of the threat of criminalization, and thus does not make it a true free market, and the price will still go up because of the risk---BUT, I truly believe that the price would not rise beyond that of a federal and state tax, plus government pricing manipulation.

Sorry for the novel, it's a complicated and often over-simplified subject. What do you guys think? I may be completely wrong, I'm 100% open to argument.

You really need to take a class on economics.

[duck]

You really need to take a class on economics.

LOL. Do you have any specific criticisms or are you joking or spouting off or what?

Ok, good points. Now just cite your source of info for your *novel* Mr. Steinback.

I didn't use any sources because I didn't have to. In economics, you don't have to give citation to Adam Smith or who the fuck ever when you use a standard supply and demand model. That's all I used, implicitly. If you'd like me to illustrate my points with MS paint or something I'd be happy to oblige. Nonetheless, it is not a restricted model and open to public use. Kind of like how a^2+b^2=c^2 doesn't need to be cited, it's a public good.

[dannydanko420]

I think it would just because of how much money they make if hey would tax it, i'm a medical marijuana patient and i've heard and seen with my own eyes that they're taxing it in California, in the Bay Area like for instance the Berkely clubs tax, Oakland clubs tax, all city licensed well not all but some already have ben taxing and there is so much money made just from the tax alone. I think they estimated at one point it was over one million or one billion dollars in a year just from state tax on cannabis it was even on he radio, i anyone lives in cali or northern cali they kno wat i'm talkin about!!!

The TAX is so much i think they're charging more than the California State Tax amount. it just seems like it but i just did the math and they're charging the same amout i believe.

I PERSONALLY DONT SEE ANY REASON FOR IT NOT TO HELP OUT CALIFORNIAS PROBLEM, ITS A CASH CROP BIGGER THEN CORN IN CALIFORNIA AND I DONT SEE WHY THE GOV. CANT SEE THAT, I THINK IF IT WAS LEGALIZED AND REGULATED THEN THERE WOULD BE LESS CRIME THEN THERE IS, I DONT BELIEVE MARIJUANA HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CRIME, IT'S THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HANDLE THE SITUATION OF THEIR OWN MARIJUAN FOR INSTANCE GORILLA GROWERS OR GROWERS PERIOD ALWAY HAVE GUNS, WHY? CUZ MOST OF IT IS ILLEGAL CUZ OF IT BEING GROWN ON OR IN STATE RECREATIONAL PARKS AND NATIIONAL PARKS THEN IT BECOMESA PROBLEM BUT THE PPL WHO ACTUALLY HAVE A CARD AND NEED AS MUCH AS THEY NEED, THEY SHOULD LET THESE PPL GROW ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY HASLE ONCE SO EVER, THEY AS IN THE GOVERNMENT OF CALIFORNIA AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL HAVE ORGANIZATIONS THA SPECIFICLY GO OUT ON A DAILY BASIS LOOKING IN NATIONAL FORESTS, STATE PARKS FOR THE GORILLA GROWERS THERE ARE ALSO ORGANIZATIONS SET UP FROM CITY POLICE OR COUNTY SHERIFF THAT GO OUT AND CLOSE DOWN CLUBS, ALL OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE GOVERNMENT FUNDEND MEANING YOUR TAX MONEY IS BEING SPENT ON THESE RAIDS!!!!!!

IF YOUR A PATIENT LIKE I AM AND IT ACTUALLY HELPS YOU OUT LIKE FOR ME I GOT MY CARD FOR TWO REASONS CHRONIC PAIN AND CHRONIC NAUSEA, THE TWO MOST COMMON THINGS THAT MARIJUANA IS USED FOR MEDICINALLY!!!!! WITH OUT IT I VOMIT A LOT AND TEAR UP MY ESOPHAGUS AND JUST TAKES ALL THE ENERGY OUT OF ME WHEN I'M VOMITING LIKE THAT, ITS USUALLY WORSE AT NIGHT AND IN THE MORNING SO YEA IT REALLY HELPS ME TO CALM MY STOMACH DOWN AND EAT, I LOST SO MUCH WEIGHT DO TO VOMITING SO I WOULD LOVE FORIT TO BECOME FEDEALLY LEGALIZED!!!! I THINK IT WOULD HELP OUT A LOT ACTUALLY JUST THINK OF THE REVENUE MONEY ALONE!!!

AS THE FAMOUS BOB MARLEY SAID, "LEGALIZE IT!!" R.I.P. BOB MARLEY!!!!!

WELL TIME FOR ME TO MEDICATE SO THATS MY INPUT ON THE SITUATION!!!!! :D

[PiLL CLiNToN]

In one word NO. It could help, but we are fucked. Sorry to despair but its what I think is the truth.

Co-signage.

[oxy kid]

Duck no doubt made his arguement for his opinion. As much as all of us who are for legalizing it say it will help, I know I don't really have any solid information or truth to the reason that it would pull us out of this crapper economy other than the idea that TONS and TONS of weed would be purchased and taxed by the government resulting in an outrageous new income from a market that hasn't been taken by them yet.

I really think that it would help the government. I really don't see how it could hurt it. The only thing I see that it could hurt was the dealers who sold it before it was legalized, but that isn't the question at hand.

[chopstix]

You really need to take a class on economics.

LOL. Do you have any specific criticisms or are you joking or spouting off or what?


Seriously - Kilobyte, do you have anything to contribute aside from what you wrote above? At least duck makes an argument for his case - wtf do you have?? Instead of criticism with no back-up, how about a point or two to help keep the conversation interesting, or maybe just not posting at all and keeping the thread clean instead of (redundantly) quoting a long, well thought out post and adding 7 words of thin criticism..

I am absolutely %100 for legalization of cannabis for multiple reasons, I'm not %100 across the board legalization of all psychoactives, but I think de-criminalization for use and possession of small amounts of most drugs should be handled by something other than the prisons.. That's another subject..

I grew up in a very active region full of quality smoke, smoked daily from 14 to early 20s, quit for awhile, then off and on then quit for years starting late 20s.. Picked it up again slowly in mid 30s, now with the kicking and sleep issues, it's a gawdsend - lately I've been vaping really strong honey oil off charcoal at night and it's fucking lights out with that shit (no plant matter at all: golden yellow, pure indica THC and CBD).

I know migraine patients who swear by mj and I know of AIDS and Cancer patients who also swear by it - why deny it to people who want it? Most will get it anyway.. I know a guy in his mid 60s who is off nearly all pain and sleep meds thanks to his medical card, it has value aside from "whoa dude."

The only negative account that I personally know is a stroke patient who tended to have strokes and seize when she smoked. She was not on the medical program and we eventually lost her to another stroke. We think the weed played a part, but we can't be sure..

The founding fathers knew prohibition wouldn't work, and they were right. You simply can't stop people from using psychoactives, and with something as benign as herb, wtf?? What fucking century are we living in again?? It's just stupid that it's illegal..

It already is legal for me at the moment as long as I'm in CA, and I do pay tax on what I buy OTC - tax isn't that much, but the dispensary prices can be as much as 10-20% above street prices, but not always (I was surprised to find honey oil at $45/G - that's cheap considering), and I think it will always be on and likely cheaper on the street, but you'll never see the same selection, on the street - you buy what you can and you rarely know it's history. It's just a weed, the shit grows anywhere and on top of it just being a hardy weed that grows about anywhere, proper attention can turn it into a work of art - there will always be a connoisseurs' market, underground or not..

I couldn't tell you how long (maybe '90?) I've been trying to figure out why the government doesn't just give up on enforcement (spending millions++ on investigation and busts) and instead sell and tax it, just like liquor and smokes. THEY CAN'T STOP IT, even legalizing it won't fucking stop it, so stop being idiots and grow/buy and then re-sell and tax it and utilize it's many other resources for MAKING money, cloth, clothes, nutritious, non-psychoactive food, etc and stop fucking wasting money just because it's a mild psychoactive less dangerous than alcohol.

So many people smoke pot it's not even funny - you should see some of the suits I see at the dispensaries.. I also see a lot of sick people, and wonder how many people there are who can't get out of bed but are truly grateful for CA prop 215..

I personally don't think I have any illusions about legalization/de-criminalization realities - it won't bring bake head utopia (though the current situation in ca could be viewed that way by some, pretty comical in some ways), to me it's simply a stupid fight that could be turned into asset and imo, probably wouldn't change a whole lot except keeping people off the streets looking for shit who don't want to be there, and giving the cops more money and time to deal with things that should be dealt with, like real criminals..

We're talking about billions annually from taxes and savings on enforcement, and that's just from the state of CA. At this point in time, I think it's stupid to put it off.. It's just a plant that isn't even terribly addictive - we need the money, fucking tax it just like booze; doesn't mean everyone will be smoking Marlboro Greens, I know I won't (very often, I personally like to know where my shit came from and I don't think that would change) but it *will* generate revenue, in addition to curbing wasteful expenditure...

[duck]

ent. I really don't see how it could hurt it. The only thing I see that it could hurt was the dealers who sold it before it was legalized, but that isn't the question at hand.

That's the question...well, that and the users. I just don't want to see the participants in the current market--buyers and sellers--get thrown under the tax and regulation bus (DEA/FDA) that so many pharmaceutical pain management patients endure.

CSTIX- great post and I adhere 100% to the structure of your premises, I just disagree on the specifics of the conclusion.

I think we're parallel through this:
p1. cannabis is benign
p2. cannabis use is impossible to stop by the government
p3. the country would be better off w/ some form of decriminlization.

But then, we ( and I think most other who have posted) differ when it comes to the conclusion:

Me: decriminalize significantly but do not legalize and place in the hands of the government
You: legalize and tax/regulate via government

I'm just pointing out, ya know, my post (novel? lol) may have seemed coarse and dense, but I didn't mean for it to, and we actually share a lot in common, it's just the specific solution we differ on.

[EleusisII]

Ammiano introduced legislation last month that would legalize pot and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale (http://perezhilton.com/2009-03-13-headline-of-the-week-weak-374#) — a move that could mean billions for the cash-strapped state. Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion in annual sales

I like to smoke occasionally, but this is the dumbest idea ever...
OK, so it's not the dumbest idea ever, but it's certainly no stroke of brilliance. And Mr. Ammiano will be very disappointed, if the thinks that it'll add bundles of money to the state of California.

The only reason Marijuana is such a big cash crop, is because it's illegal, and the risk involved. Those 14 billion dollars will disappear into thin air, the minute it's legalized. Marijuana is very cheap and easy to produce.

State revenues would be derived from a $50 per ounce levy on retail sales of marijuana and sales taxes.

And this is where it gets REALLY stupid. 50$ an ounce?!? What would the consumer buy... The cheap illegal stuff, or the licensed marijuana thats $50 an ounce more?

Illegal marijuana growers and dealers aren't going to disappear in a cloud of smoke. Sure the profits will be smaller, but there will still be a huge market because... Well people like to save money. And 50$ an ounce is a nice amount to save.
There is already a HUGE infrastructure in place to facilitate the illegal growing, smuggling, sale etc. of illegal marijuana. Does the government really expect to be able to compete with that?

I say decriminalize it/legalize it through the dutch model (It's not completely legal there). But don't start taxing it, besides the normal salestax. That would just be idiotic.

[Mayo]

I think they should legalize it, and that it would bring in revenue.
Going to a store and buying marijuana would be quite a unique experience for most Americans.
Hell, I'd go to CA and get some just to check it out, and I don't even smoke now.

Also, its not hard to make beer, wine, or booze, but most people still prefer to just buy it from a store.
I think the same applies to weed, tho some obviously would still like to grow their own.
Having the convenience of just going to a store and buying it compared to having to 'score' some weed or grow their own would
certainly bring in money for the state.
I don't see how it wouldn't, unless the cost of enforcement used up all the profits.

[duck]

I think they should legalize it, and that it would bring in revenue.
Going to a store and buying marijuana would be quite a unique experience for most Americans.
Also, its not hard to make beer, wine, or booze, but most people still prefer to just buy it from a store.
I think the same applies to weed, tho some obviously would still like to grow their own.
Having the convenience of just going to a store and buying it compared to having to 'score' some weed or grow their own would
certainly bring in money for the state.
I don't see how it wouldn't, unless the cost of enforcement used up all the profits.

I'm definitely not arguing that for convenience only, government regulated marijuana wouldn't be better than it is now.

But, the question is, would it be priced better than if it was highly decriminalized?

[chopstix]

That's the question...well, that and the users. I just don't want to see the participants in the current market--buyers and sellers--get thrown under the tax and regulation bus (DEA/FDA) that so many pharmaceutical pain management patients endure.
<snip>

But then, we ( and I think most other who have posted) differ when it comes to the conclusion:

Me: decriminalize significantly but do not legalize and place in the hands of the government
You: legalize and tax/regulate via government


Tax via state though I doubt the gov will keep their hands out of it for long..

Decriminalization would be great but I think that's just simply a naive ideal here, and CA, like most states, could really use the fucking money - tax the herb and put the money into public schools, they need it really badly..

The growing community here is so large that it's not going anywhere, and @Eleusis: 50/Z price fluctuation isn't that much: 250-400+/Z aren't uncommon numbers, especially when you're looking at a veritable feast of strains to sample from as well as the purest honey oil and multiple kinds of bubble hash.. You don't get anywhere near this selection on the street..

Good Indica (true) Honey Oil is one of the best sleep meds in my arsenal..

It is currently decriminalized in Alaska, and I think that's great, Alaska isn't as poor as CA is though, at least tmk. California could really use the money. I think it should be a state to state thing, and in CA we already have a medical infrastructure set up, it would be easy enough to just lift medical restriction, and start selling a buttload of pot to all of the new tourists that wanna come and legally burn one on the beaches..

I think they should legalize it, and that it would bring in revenue.
Going to a store and buying marijuana would be quite a unique experience for most Americans.
Hell, I'd go to CA and get some just to check it out, and I don't even smoke now.

Also, its not hard to make beer, wine, or booze, but most people still prefer to just buy it from a store.
I think the same applies to weed, tho some obviously would still like to grow their own.
Having the convenience of just going to a store and buying it compared to having to 'score' some weed or grow their own would
certainly bring in money for the state.
I don't see how it wouldn't, unless the cost of enforcement used up all the profits.

Exactly - and tourism would be a key benefit to full legalization; and yeah, people still home brew, and the smaller brew pubs are the ones usually making interesting beer, I don't think it would be much different except that grow houses smell a hell of a lot better than breweries..

Stinky coffee shops in CA - I like it..

But, the question is, would it be priced better than if it was highly decriminalized?

I doubt by much, it's already expensive. Anyone here know the Oz - lb price ranges in Alaska?? 2-300/Z - 5000/lb in CA depending..