Advertisement
Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?
www.time.com/time/nation...4956,00.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here's some positive word on the Herb...
...but still sprinkled with propaganda.
After the quote "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 and loved ones." its point is illustrated by a link to Mexico's Drug wars, which is kind of ridiculous. "Drug wars" are about control ($) of the substance, not really about the physical effects of the substance.
There are "probably some" responsible people but "lots" of people who can't control it?
Probably those same "lots" of people have trouble with cigarettes and alcohol, too.
But as usual the whole gesture is motivated by money to be made... Maybe that’s why TIME magazine covered it...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?
By Alison Stateman / Los Angeles Friday, Mar. 13, 2009
Could marijuana be the answer to the economic misery facing California? Democratic state assemblyman Tom Ammiano thinks so. Ammiano introduced legislation last month that would legalize pot and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale — a move that could mean billions of dollars for the cash-strapped state. Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion a year in sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity — milk and cream — which brings in $7.3 billion a year, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state's tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion a year in much needed revenue, offsetting some of the billions of dollars 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 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." (See pictures of stoner cinema.)
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 for medical marijuana and that federal raids on pot dispensaries in California would cease. The move signaled a softening of the hard-line approach to medicinal pot use previous Administrations have taken. 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 take with him experience as police chief of Seattle, where he made it clear that going after people for possessing marijuana was not a priority for his force. (See a story about the grass-roots marijuana war in California.)
In 1996 California became one of the first states in the nation to legalize medical marijuana. Currently, $200 million in medical-marijuana sales are subject to sales tax. If passed, the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390) would give California control of pot in a manner similar to that of alcohol while prohibiting its purchase by 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-oz. 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 need for the projected revenue, opponents say legalizing pot would 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 would lead to a surge in its use, much as happened when alcohol was allowed to be sold in venues other than liquor stores in some states. (Read why Dr. Sanjay Gupta is against decriminalizing pot.)
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 and loved ones." (See pictures of Mexico's drug wars.)
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 nonviolent offenders could save the state $1 billion a year. "We couldn't make this drug any more available if we tried," he says. "Not only do we have those problems, along with glamorizing it by making it illegal, but we also have the crime and corruption that go along with it." He adds, "Unfortunately, every society in the history of mankind has had some form of mind-altering, sometimes addictive substances to use, to misuse, abuse or get addicted to. Get used to it. They're here to stay. So let's try to reduce those harms, and right now we couldn't do it worse if we tried."
--
www.time.com/time/nation...4956,00.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here's some positive word on the Herb...
...but still sprinkled with propaganda.
After the quote "There are probably some responsible people who can handle marijuana, but there are lots of people who can't, and it has an enormous negative impact on them, their family and loved ones." its point is illustrated by a link to Mexico's Drug wars, which is kind of ridiculous. "Drug wars" are about control ($) of the substance, not really about the physical effects of the substance.
There are "probably some" responsible people but "lots" of people who can't control it?
Probably those same "lots" of people have trouble with cigarettes and alcohol, too.
But as usual the whole gesture is motivated by money to be made... Maybe that’s why TIME magazine covered it...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?
By Alison Stateman / Los Angeles Friday, Mar. 13, 2009
Could marijuana be the answer to the economic misery facing California? Democratic state assemblyman Tom Ammiano thinks so. Ammiano introduced legislation last month that would legalize pot and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale — a move that could mean billions of dollars for the cash-strapped state. Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion a year in sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity — milk and cream — which brings in $7.3 billion a year, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state's tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion a year in much needed revenue, offsetting some of the billions of dollars 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 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." (See pictures of stoner cinema.)
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 for medical marijuana and that federal raids on pot dispensaries in California would cease. The move signaled a softening of the hard-line approach to medicinal pot use previous Administrations have taken. 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 take with him experience as police chief of Seattle, where he made it clear that going after people for possessing marijuana was not a priority for his force. (See a story about the grass-roots marijuana war in California.)
In 1996 California became one of the first states in the nation to legalize medical marijuana. Currently, $200 million in medical-marijuana sales are subject to sales tax. If passed, the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390) would give California control of pot in a manner similar to that of alcohol while prohibiting its purchase by 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-oz. 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 need for the projected revenue, opponents say legalizing pot would 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 would lead to a surge in its use, much as happened when alcohol was allowed to be sold in venues other than liquor stores in some states. (Read why Dr. Sanjay Gupta is against decriminalizing pot.)
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 and loved ones." (See pictures of Mexico's drug wars.)
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 nonviolent offenders could save the state $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."
--
posted by:
|
Canada
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy? - TIME
Fri, March 20, 2009 - 4:03 AM"The last thing we need is yet another mind-altering substance to be legalized," says John Lovell...
This is an idiotic statement, as are the later ones comparing marijuanna to alchohol and tobacco.
They are different classes of substance, across the board.
Having moved from Alberta to Vancouver, BC several years ago, I have seen first hand the effects of having a quasi-legal status on cannibinoids.
A relatively gentler population, including the weird point that the Downtown East Hastings area (in competition with a street in Seattle for the origination of the term 'Skid Row') while having a high level of human suffering and addiction problems (and I'm not talking about weed), is relatively peaceful.
I can't believe that the peace officer in the article isn't a fan of decriminalization, considering that as someone who has often worked in security roles, I would much rather deal with a pothead than someone on alchohol.
Many local law enforcement officials are advocates of legalization, based on their experience in their fields.
The other point that should be taken into account is socio-cultural feedback loops with substances.
From my particular background, I'm very familiar with the cultural identification of Cowboys and Celts with drinking and fighting.
With Jamaican Rasta culture, the social expectations of using ganja include coherency, work ethic, and community responsibility.
The north American use of marijuanna is often accompanied by the expectation of "Beavis and Butthead" results, so that's what people experience.
In the case of almost any substance, allowing it social/legal acceptability also allows for disemination of information that alters the usage of such substance by the general population towards a healthier interaction.
I'm actually not a "chronic". I use marijuanna socially, and occasionally recognize specific mental or physical states that indicate that it's use is to be recommended.
In my experience, alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous, and deletorious in their effects individually or socially.
This isn't the place to go off on a diatribe about the differences between First Nations use of tobacco vs current use (you're NOT supposed to inhale, the dosage factor altars significantly between the membranes of the tongue and cheek and the lungs), or alcohol (scarcity prevented it's misuse in historic European cultures, and it was often entrenched in a cultural matrix where it's consumption at "feast" times had a specific socio/psychological function).
But with the issue of SENSIBLE legalisation of Marijuanna in California, go for it.
American policies affect Canada heavily.
There is a Bill moving through the pseudo-Republican Harper government for mandatory sentencing for marijuanna growers, that would effectively result in an "echo" of the US' insanely high incarceration population.
Not cool, and a waste of resources.
