Calif. is "broke."
If "grass" is legalized for "recreational use," how do ya think it'll effect Calif's economy?
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.
Yeah. Whatever happened to just getting a friendly nickel bag from the guy down the street?
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?
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.
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.
Some stoner wrote an interesting hub about this subject last spring........
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.
The current administration will not arrest users.
Future ones.. who knows?
Why wouldn't the current administration enforce federal laws? Isn't that part of the oath of office?
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.
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?
Yes, and you should sue them.
Go get'em tiger.
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?
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!
Laws are laws regardless of how they came about. Our leaders are sworn to uphold all laws not just the ones they agree with.
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!
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?
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.
In that case would the people in state government be arrested for aiding and abetting criminal drug use?
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.
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.
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.
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.
the idea of banning a plant species is so not green its beyond silliness its hypocrisy squared. it must and i repeat must stop
by SparklingJewel 10 years ago
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi … eId=107086from the article..."In fact, according to the Electronic Privacy and Information Center, federal agencies have already negotiated agreements and contracts with social networking sites like Google, YouTube, SlideShare, Facebook,...
by Fluffymetal 9 years ago
Its on the ballot. You will be able to own up to an ounce if you are 21. You will not be able to smoke in public. It will be taxed. That's all I know. What do you know? What do you think? I think I want to move to CA!!
by taburkett 5 years ago
Why do US citizens continue to support a failing Administration. Is it because they are communists.With the latest scandal exposed about the Administration, one would think that the citizens would wake up to the destructive game being played by the leaders of the White House and Senate. ...
by Wayne Joel Bushong 6 years ago
Would Americans risk their lives for revolution today?Only 25% of the population participated in the American Revolution, Would you participate in a revolution against government today?
by Don W 9 months ago
Not that Special Counsel. Mueller's office is the Special Counsel's Office. This is from the Office of Special Counsel, which is different. It issued a report on May 30. Is it as ambiguous as the one from the other Special Counsel?"The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) calls on...
by ahorseback 7 months ago
There are , perhaps a leftist fringe , forum dwellers who reject outwardly the teachings of elementary, junior high and high school , US history . More importantly perhaps , why ? Considering that in a brief , incomplete and...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|