jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (39 posts)

Will California Legalize "Mahreehuana?"

  1. qwark profile image61
    qwarkposted 7 years ago

    Calif. is "broke."
    If "grass" is legalized for "recreational use," how do ya think it'll effect Calif's economy?

    1. BDazzler profile image83
      BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      From a strictly economic perspective, short term rise in tax revenue, followed by a raise in prices, followed by pot price regulation, leading to more economic woes.

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah. Whatever happened to just getting a friendly nickel bag from the guy down the street?

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The guy got elected to Congress.

          1. profile image0
            Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That makes sense - they must be smokin something

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I know, Right?

              I mean what else could make them yell "Baby Killer" at a pro-life colleague?

        2. BDazzler profile image83
          BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It's oregano, man, I swear!

    2. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Are you kidding? Did you ever walk down Venice Beach? It might just as well be legal since it's openly used and sold and begged for there.

      I wonder if it is legal, won't people just grow it in their yards, or in their homes? If they do, how will CA collect taxes on it?

      1. thisisoli profile image59
        thisisoliposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        As far as I know in the Netherlands allow home growth is limited to a few plants legally, and tehy allow certain large businesses to own licences to grow it.

        Allowing people to home grow minor amounts keeps the massive crime syndicates at bay, the large organizations make a tidy profit from those who don't want to grow, and the government gets a nice large chunk of that.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There's also the issue of quality.  Growing high-grade weed is more than a matter of throwing some seeds in the ground and waiting for the results.

          The first step is to .......

          Sorry, gotta go.

    3. Mikel G Roberts profile image85
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Tourism might go up...Doode  big_smile

  2. thisisoli profile image59
    thisisoliposted 7 years ago

    Well considering the 'legalized' crops in california turned in to Californias biggest cash crop when the 9/11 attacks happened and homeland security tightened up the borders from teh mexicans, I think it could be a winner.

    1. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This:
      I'M WITH YA!!!

  3. profile image0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    Hope so smile

  4. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    Some stoner wrote an interesting hub about this subject last spring........

  5. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    It is irrelevant whether or not State Government makes or votes it legalized.

    It is still a Federal Crime....State or individual States cannot re-write Federal Laws.

    The chance Federal Laws are going to change? It what really matters.

    Sure, citizens would be exempt from State prosecution, but Federal Authorities would be able to arrest people. If States start Legalizing it across the U.S., then the Federal Government would have to do something?

    What that something is unknown? Would the crackdown be devastating? or Would it no longer be a Federal Law against it?

    Be careful what you wish for? The road/path of legalization is a slippery one and if not handled properly, it could do more damage than expected.

    Just my thoughts.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The current administration will not arrest users.

      Future ones.. who knows?

      1. Padrino profile image59
        Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Why wouldn't the current administration enforce federal laws? Isn't that part of the oath of office?

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Eric Holder announced earlier this year that Federal resources would not be wasted going after individual users in California.

          ALL law enforcement agencies prioritize enforcement activities based on resources and public opinion.  This administration correctly views the arrest and prosecution of individual users to not be in the public interest.

          1. Padrino profile image59
            Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I would agree with them in the regard that it serves no purpose. But, are they not then ignoring federal laws that they swore to uphold?

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, and you should sue them.

              Go get'em tiger.

              1. Padrino profile image59
                Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                That's funny, its ok with you that the U.S.Attorney picks and chooses what laws he wants to enforce? Would it be ok with you what right he chose to allow you? Was it ok with you that Bush suspended Habeas Corpus?

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  This was addressed in my earlier post.

        2. profile image0
          Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It shouldn't even be a federal law! Once again the Federal Government overstepped their bounds and used the commerce clause of the constitution to expand their power over the drug laws, only this time it was Bush that stole our freedom!

          The Obama admin isn't going to enforce, but they can if they want to, which is still wrong!

          1. Padrino profile image59
            Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Laws are laws regardless of how they came about. Our leaders are sworn to uphold all laws not just the ones they agree with.

            1. profile image0
              Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That's my point! The federal government shouldn't have the right to regulate the sale of Marijuana inside the borders of a state. They have distorted the intent of the constitution's commerce clause to assume that power, just as they will do with health care and anything else they want to!

              1. Padrino profile image59
                Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I guess I don't understand your point. The feds have a right to enact any legislation they want, whether its constitutional is another debate. If there is a law and those sworn to uphold all laws don't, then they have violated their oath of office, Am I wrong?

                1. profile image0
                  Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You're not entirely wrong. Congress and the President take an oath to uphold the constitution. The constitution limits the power of the federal government very specifically. Keep in mind, that the creation of the federal government is born out of a compact between the States, the Federal Government then, can't or more precisely, shouldn't be a party to a dispute between a state and the federal government. However, the commerce clause is quite broad and says simply that the federal government has the power to regulate commerce between foreign nations, Indian tribes and the states. Somehow the feds have managed to regulate everything by justifying it as trade between the states, like marijuana for example, since most of it comes from Mexico, the Feds claim they have jurisdiction and using the supremacy clause claim federal law trumps that of the State.

                  1. Padrino profile image59
                    Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I get that but swearing to uphold the constitution should be the same as swearing to uphold the laws. I am not for going after drug users but I am for elected and appointed people following all laws.

      2. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No, just dealers smile

    2. thisisoli profile image59
      thisisoliposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      In that case would the people in state government be arrested for aiding and abetting criminal drug use?

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        One would think, but in reality, not likely. hmm

    3. TheGlassSpider profile image83
      TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The current administration has already released a memo to authorities advising them not to pursue marijuana users who are in compliance with their state's laws. You're not going to see problems from the Feds on that front.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I wouldn't count it out. However, the legalization is still a sticky situation. To be honest, even I cannot find a solution for taxation.

        I am being serious- there cannot be any system, for which, Federal authorities could plan for, to enforcement of taxation.

        There are already problems with statistics on how much is actually coming into the country, never mind, what is already grown here.

        Trying to legalize it and then apply taxation or regulation isn't a viable system. It isn't like Cigarettes. The network is underground mostly and based on cash. Therefore makes for a non-viable source for taxation.

        The Federal Authorities are not prepared to legalize it, so yes I can see arrests coming from it.

        1. thisisoli profile image59
          thisisoliposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I feel like the government should enforce laws, but I also disagree with weed being outlawed.

          Taxation should be at source, and it should be relatively light, and come with quality regulations.

          If weed can be created to a high standard, with the choice between  hydro or land grown, sold conveniently in stores, who is going to risk buying it off the black market?

          The usual argument is that black market dealers will sell it cheaper, and all that tax revenue would be lost, but if you legalize home growing up to a certain number of plants, the people who would normally go black market to save a few bucks will home grow it instead.

          In past legalizations of any substance legalization hes meant the end of any blackmarket, which makes taxation incredibly easy, as taxation at source.

          1. Padrino profile image59
            Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Moonshine is still made and sold believe it or not.

  6. Arthur Fontes profile image90
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    Rhode Island has legal medical marijuana with licensed growers.

    Massachusetts has lowered the possession charge to a misdemeanor with no arrest just a $100.00 fine.

  7. aware profile image69
    awareposted 7 years ago

    this country was built on hemp

  8. aware profile image69
    awareposted 7 years ago

    the idea of banning a plant species is so not green its beyond silliness its hypocrisy squared. it must and i repeat must stop

 
working