HORRAY FOR WEED!!!
The biggest detriment to the bottom line there is cancer, but I was under the impression weed smokers’ lungs =/= cigarette smokers’ lungs by a long shot. http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#tobacco
Anyone know much about how the cancer rates compare to cigarettes?
Also, it doesn’t seem like the chart takes into account all the drug enforcement officers that wouldn’t be needed when they don’t have to chase all the weed (and only have to chase the hard stuff).
Ah yes, the old “Stoners Save the World” fantasy. Put the government in charge of dope and everything will be fine. They do so well at everything else. Ann Arbor, MI tried something like this years ago. Didn’t quite work out. They ended-up paying more to print the tax stamps than the tax it brought in.
Why not just legalize it and don’t tax it? I know, it’ll never happen. All the people in law enforcement would have to get real jobs. Judges, lawyers, police, prison guards, you name it. Once you create a government agency, it doesn’t go away. Oregon’s liquour control agency is a leftover from prohibition. It should have gone away 80 years ago.
Couldn’t agree more, Hog.
What about the peripheral effects – like the increased businees at fast food retaurants and convenience stores?
Cant tax what ya can grow in your own house.
Save your lungs. Follow the Alice B. Toklas method.
Legalize it? The bottom line is power & money.
Like gambling; if “they” can make a buck on it, it will eventually be legalized ; or if there are enough legislators who want it for themselves; it will be legalized.
That tax amount assumes that everyone who is smoking will buy their weed through legitimate sources so all the correct taxes can be collected.
As some others have mentioned, I do not believe this; it would probably take more money to track down illegal purchases than the tax money would bring in.
Of course, common sense has nothing to do with what CA will do with this issue.
I cannot be unbiased about marijuana. I have seen the disastrous effects of its use in my own family, and could never be in favor of anything that broadens or approves of its use. The “sins” or usage of the parents have been visited on the children a hundred fold.
The calculation has omitted consequential costs other than the ??? of healthcare. What about factors such as increased road accidents and industrial accidents? (These would result from a shift in the demographics of hash smokers, as typically happens when a formerly banned substance is unbanned.)
There is also the cost of lost productivity in the economy as people that are smoked up are very seldom revved up.
The final point is that lung cancer is not the sole health consequence.
people that want to do it are going to do it. at least legalization cost tax payers less money in the long run.
Comments are closed.