gone.
Printable View
gone.
I think you are only looking at one part of the scenario.
Stoners are known for their sitting around the TV (and when finally kicked out on the street - curb) time. They are not going to rush out and go "Whoo hoo - I'm getting a job!" And when they do work, they have "courage" from a bottle, syringe, or bong - ie, incredibly obnoxious to relate to as a customer.
They are known for stealing. From their families. From their employers. From their neighbors.
As a dog will eat until it is sick, so will an addict pump drugs. I believe drugs are a health care issue - heck - I know they are.
I think you need to explore the other side of the coin when it comes to the savings.
I agree entirely. *Used to be part of NORML/ SSDP* At the very least, it should be decriminalized. Save a fuckload of $$$, and keeps nonviolent offenders out of prison.
Legalizing growing it will produce a crapload or cash. So much of our money goes overseas for ganja. Even if it's not legal here (which would be dumb) we would be bringing in so much more and wouldn't need to rely on imported weed.
So much tax money also goes to ineffective programs and public service announcements exgagerating and lying about drugs to children. There was a South Park episode about this. Essentially, the answer to keep Stan from doing drugs was telling him the truth.
Oh, and don't forget financial aid. Get caught with a j once, you lose your government financial aid, while rapists and violent offenders can still get it once they're out of prison. True, that is more money for the govt to spend, but it's an investment. An other educated individual contributing to the workforce in a field he or she is passionate enough about to go to college for. Wife batterers and rapists? How much longer before they're back in?
Yes, I think they are aware of this, but they don't want to sacrifice support from the idiots, who make up most of this country.
I don't think the price would go down by that much. If anything, it would have the shit taxed out of it. I forget the numbers and etc, and can't even remember if it was coke or heroin (thinkin coke cuz I don't think heroin was ever legal), but Penn & Teller had something about this (in their Drug War expose). When it was legal, you'd have to go a lot further to get it, it was a lot less pure, and cost a fuckload more (I think 6 times as much). They used boxes of donuts to illustrate this point. Powdered donuts. Lol
-------
From an economic standpoint, this is basically a different permutation of the 'drill here, drill now' argument over oil ... that domestic production with lucrative taxation is a far better alternative than curtailing domestic production and therefore relying on a foreign supply (and particularly a foreign supply that is impossible to tax) plus maintaining a steady drain of US dollars from US customers to foreign producers.
One thing is certain though ... if your plan was enacted the resulting drop in 'street prices' for ganja would bankrupt the state of California ... because the remaining industry with the highest cash flow would be directly and heavily impacted LOL !
I have to ask how?
Today, California gets no tax revenue from illegal drugs and narcotics. But, it pays dearly for treatment and enforcement. Assume narcotics and other scheduled substances are legalized, California could then tax them directly and bring the sellers into the state's income tax system. I don't have any figures on the size of the California drug industry or the cost of drug treatment and drug related law enforcement, but I would think that even if tax revenues were sufficient to cover the cost of treatment and enforcement that would be a substantial benefit to California. Costs that right now fall on those taxpayers who are in the system. The 2009-2010 California budget does not break out law enforcement expenses, but corrections cost $9.6 billion and health and human services are budgeted for $29.9 billion. The state does not break down how much of that is drug related. But, I am guessing a lot is, perhaps 50% for corrections and 20% of HHS? If that is the case, legalizing and taxing drugs would at least relieve the straight taxpayers of those expenses. I am not arguing in favor of legalizing drugs, but I really do not understand how legalization could bankrupt California.
Z
PS, here is a link to the California Budget for those who can decipher it better than I.
And what a hurtful thing to say to someone who has actually lived in a family situation where drugs and alcohol almost destroyed it. Only now, twenty years later, around a death, is our family finally starting to put its self together.
I am dumb founded that anyone would think that drugs is an economic boom for society and it's economy.
I know the difference between the theory on this stuff and the reality of it. :'(
I don't have time to fully answer the OP, but what I can attest to is that just because some people abuse drugs/alcohol does not mean everyone who uses drugs/alcohol will fall victim to substance abuse.
I smoke pot every week and have no problem working a full time job, getting straight A's taking 14 credits at school and paying all my bills. My husband indulges as well and is very good at running his business and is considered a community leader.
In any human population 12% (or there abouts) will have substance abuse problems, meaning that they can't function in society due to the substance abuse. Of course, our country thinks the other 78% that may indulge in the pleasure of a cocktail or joint is supposed to acquiesce to the 12% that have a genetic disorder.
I have been advocating the legalization, regulation, and taxation of the soft drug industry and prostitution, for years. I feel our attitude in Canada about these things had been dumb, but I feel the time is ripe to make a push for a change.
Your reality is not everyone's reality. I'm sorry you come from a family where drugs were abused. I did as well. But not everyone who smokes Marijuana or drinks is an addict, or incapable of work.
It brings up another point- drugs being illegal didn't protect you from the situation described. People are still going to use drugs whether they are legal or not, but there are many benefits for legalizing it. Some of the revenue from taxes could be used to better fund social programs to help people with drugs and alcohol problems, much like portions from lottery funds are used for programs to help people with gambling addiction.
^^^excellent video!
Perhaps as people quit smoking, the tobacco farms can switch to hemp or marijuana?
Back on the subject of California Cannabis, you're looking at the finances from a governmental budget standpoint. However, California grown cannabis is heavily exported to other states ... and as such is one of the few remaining 'engines' for California private sector GDP. The profits earned by California cannabis growers are then spent into the California local economy, providing business / income to a host of other Californians from solar energy suppliers to car dealers. If Cannabis were to be legalized, the associated huge drop in price would devastate the profitability to California growers.
here's a tidbit reflecting just how large an amount of dollars we're talking about ...
(snip)"California also is among nine states that produce more cannabis than residents consumed, Gettman estimates. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the state's 3.3 million cannabis users represent about 13% of the nation's pot smokers. But California produces more than 38% of the cannabis grown in the country, the study contends.
Nationwide, the estimated cannabis production of $35.8 billion exceeds corn ($23 billion), soybeans ($17.6 billion) and hay ($12.2 billion), according to Gettman's findings. "(snip)
Yes that's right from a purely economic standpoint, California pot growers represent far more positive cash flow than midwest corn farmers !!! On the net, California growers supply 38% * 35.8 billion = $14 billion dollars a year into the state / local economy.
Apparently criminalizing it didn't change anything. Sorry if THAT sounds insensitive, but it's the reality. Criminalizing drugs only hurts those with the addiction. The only way to get it is through a dealer, the stuff itself isn't regulated and tested, and getting help for it isn't really an option.
If drugs were legalized, there would be more focus on harm prevention. Testing drugs before they hit the market, they would be a lot less pure (sorry druggies), clean needles would be more readily available (without having to worry about getting busted for "paraphernalia"), AND those with addictions could come forth and get help, without worrying about legal consequences.
I'm sorry that had to happen to you, but the effects of drugs are only going to be more devastating with the current drug policy.
--------
you are right, I was focusing just on the California budget. But, looking at the California economy as a whole, $14 billion is just not that much. According to the California Department of Finance California's GDP in 2006 was $1.7 trillion dollars. Of that, exports all goods was $134 billion. Agriculture was $38 billion. Computer equipment exports were $48 billion. So, I don't think pot really qualifies as that big a deal.
Z