awesome hot Blacksummers'night DVD DIVX Hardwired cool album Kings Of Leon USA G-Force video DVD music Obsessed (Official Remix) qualitive Crank: High Voltage avi buy hot Day and Age qualitive avi The Matrix buy R&B - Various Artists music cool avi Australia

News Updates


 
| Print |  E-mail

Budget Deficit Hits High Times


Written by  James Spencer
  
May 21, 2009

Weeks ago, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger mentioned it may be time for California to “open the debate” on allowing the recreational use of marijuana, he lit up the eyes of legalization advocates everywhere.

He also piqued the interest of those who keep a watchful eye on the state’s budget issues.

The Office of Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a Democrat from San Francisco, claims an initial estimate of $1.3 billion in new revenue to the state if his AB390 legalization bill passed. A share of that would go to local governments, said Quintin Mecke, communications director for Ammiano.

“All sales tax would still be applicable, that’s not including local fees,” Mecke said. “Municipalities could certainly take advantage of that.”

That scenario, of course, would only transpire if federal government law changed. If the bill was passed and federal law stood pat, it would only decriminalize marijuana for personal use and private cultivation. There would be no state revenue.

If federal law were amended, Ammiano’s bill would suggest a model similar to the regulation of alcohol, suggesting a $50-per-ounce tax to be paid through the cultivation and retail process.

Allen St. Pierre
, executive director of The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), said Schwarzenegger, consistent with his overall management style and economic philosophy, has been decidedly laissez faire regarding the proliferation of medical cannabis dispensaries in California.

“Considering the size of California's annual budget struggles, absent the morality play in the minds of a minority of Americans these days, a governor of a state with likely $10-$15 billion in untaxed and uncontrolled cannabis sales annually, in NORML's view, is malfeasant not to explore ending what is clearly a failed prohibition of a popularly consumed product,” St. Pierre said.

NORML’s take is that it seems unlikely that the federal government will take the lead anytime soon on cannabis law reforms.

“Leaders in the House and Senate tell us that they're looking for more and more states to first put pressure on the federal government, to create the proverbial 'tipping point' for federal law reforms,” St. Pierre said. “Many in Congress acknowledge that this tipping point appears closer than ever before.”

John Lovell
, lobbyist for the California Peace Officers Association, said AB390 would not raise money for the state. He explains the $50 tax on each ounce of marijuana would mean the price of marijuana at a liquor store or grocery store would be the value of the drug on the street, plus $50.

“People can go to Safeway and buy it at street value plus $50 or continue to buy from the same drug dealer who is only going to charge the street value,” Lovell said. “As customers get more sophisticated, they will simply buy illegal marijuana.”

In addition, Lovell said there is no fine or penalty under AB390 for a customer to buy marijuana illegally and the penalty for a dealer to sell illegally is just $250. He also noted the bill undermines the penalties against selling dope to children and illegal cultivation for growers abroad who will now choose to grow in California.

Cost-savings at the local law enforcement level?

Ammiano’s office asserts the initial $1.3 billion in added revenue to the state does not take into account the additional savings to the state regarding redirection of current law enforcement efforts committed to fighting the drug.

But Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department spokesman Steve Whitmore disagrees, explaining it is not that simple.

“We would be doing other things,” Whitmore said. “That dollar is spent elsewhere. If marijuana becomes legal, there is always going to be a black market. I’m not sure that we would have cost-savings. Our narcotics bureau would be doing other things.”

Whitmore explained most of the department's resources in fighting the drug go toward the eradication of marijuana grows.

Sgt. Norm Leong, a spokesman for the Sacramento Police Department, doesn’t comment on such matters since the department is not a political entity.  Leong did say that there was not an inordinate amount of resources dedicated to fighting marijuana.

James Gray, a retired Orange County Superior Court Judge and a supporter of legalization, told Time Magazine in a recent article that he estimates legalizing marijuana and ceasing the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of nonviolent offenders could save the state $1 billion per year.

A much smaller savings number came from a California NORML Report done in February that estimates $170.3 million is spent in marijuana enforcement in California per year.

An increasing trend in pro-legalization opinion

A Field Poll recently released found that 56 percent of California voters supported legalizing and taxing marijuana. ABC News recently did a poll showing that 46 percent nationally favored legalization.

Mecke says Ammiano’s office is certainly under the opinion that, over time, legalization is going to happen.

There are a couple factors, Mecke said, including the support of states who have legalized medical marijuana for more than a decade, and that America is at the point in which the majority have tried marijuana.

“Reality is catching up to people’s attitudes toward marijuana,” Mecke said. “Studies have shown a lot of people use it. “

As new generations become the voice, the cultural potency may change, said Robert Thompson, professor and founding director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University.

“You’ve got a lot of old stoners now in their 60s who grew up when this had become much more domesticated and naturalized,” Thompson said. “They are now becoming the grandfathers and grandmothers.”
Regardless of society’s view on marijuana and its dangers, the large source of revenue itself makes it open for discussion.

“It makes sense to have the debate,” said Thompson, who said he doesn’t lean one way or the other on the controversial topic. “It is time for an intelligent discussion about this. It’s a very complex issue.

“In Barack Obama’s town hall, it was posed as a question and put off as a joke and everyone laughed about it. The very mention of marijuana still brings giggles in the Jeff Spicoli type of way. Instead of having a good scholarly conversation, everyone is putting their elbow in their ribs.”

Schwarzenegger’s quote in a press conference this month was open-ended: "I think it's time for debate. I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues -- I'm always for an open debate on it."

The debate, which has gone on for years, is now back in the spotlight.

 James Spencer can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Trackback(0)
Comments (6)Add Comment
...
written by Richard Steeb, May 22, 2009
Ironic that fiscal constraints are required before the gross injustice of cannabis prohibition gets a closer look.

Whatever net revenue to the state is realized through the legalization of cannabis is trivial next to the shattered lives of those imprisoned by the "justice" system or killed by the cartels.

To keep Cannabis illegal while tobacco and alcohol are dispensed freely is murderously stupid.

http://tinyurl.com/Henningfield-Benowitz
http://www.google.com/search?&q=tashkin

Any questions?

Richard P Steeb, San Jose California
...
written by EndtheProhibition, May 21, 2009
Mr. Lovell's math is inaccurate. Store prices will NOT be street price plus $50!

The store price will have to be less than street price or the main benefit from legalization will fail to be realized (to drive the cartels and drug dealers out of the market). The stores will therefore have to buy their product at a price that allows them to pay the $50 tax, make a profit and still sell for less than the cartels can match.

Growers already have the ability to legally produce marijuana at a price that makes this possible. The big difference between growing marijuana legally and growing it illegally is that illegal growers require extra compensation to offset the risk they take. As legal growers don't take this risk they'll always be able to produce their product at price their illegal competitors will be unable to match.

Growers already want to pay taxes, consumers want to be legal. The conditions are ripe for Congressman Ammiano's plan to be universally and passionately adopted. Save our jobs and save our schools, legalize the production and sale of marijuana to adults!
...
written by Miss Informed, May 21, 2009
The problem isn't the "legalization" of it. The problem is having thugs running businesses that promote greed, dishonesty and corruption. Current pot clubs have the opportunity to "run" themselves like real businesses, however it never fails that they eventually get raided for something and ultimately there is a large stash of cash hidden in a side room. None of these people put the money in the bank, they still buy and hold weapons and no matter what you may think they don't check out the validity of "patients", keep and maintain receipts of customers and growers and run legitimate businesses. They are a problem and cost for local law enforcement no matter how pretty the drapes are. Legalizing this will not "encourage" them to pay taxes, there is simply too much temptation for the "stoned" owners to stash the cash.
The only way I see to successfully tax them is to have them pay a pretax based on sales monthly. Something so outrageously high (pardon the pun)it would enforce them to perform the bookeeping tasks required by the state including the deposit of daily receipts.
...
written by ResponsibleAdult, May 21, 2009
Legalize it. Treat it like alcohol plain and simple.

I'm so sick of the Gateway Drug Argument. Alcohol is the ULTIMATE GATEWAY DRUG. It's probably 90% of people's first buzz. And if they like it, the want more. None of my successful friends that smoke got into heavy drugs like coke.

Once it's legal it will be exciting for the first 3 months. After that, the people who smoke now, will probably smoke the same amount. And the people who won't, simply won't. Not much will change.

And if treated like alcohol. Kids will have as much access to it as a 6 pack of beer.

So legalize it. And to the folks that say NO and that have never done it, what right do they have to judge it?

The only reason that it's bad for society is because there's a black market that creates crime.
...
written by TYC, May 21, 2009
The choice is simple. If prohibitionists like the system currently in place then by all means allow the drug gangs to distribute drugs to all and to receive all profits. The only other option is to

LEGALIZE, REGULATE, AND TAX.

Currently children can access drugs because there is no regulation. The government has taken a hands off approach. They only step in to arrest and eradicate which doesn't seem to be working. The Tucson Sector of the Border Patrol captures nearly 4,500 lbs a DAY. And they readily admit that they only get 5 - 10 %. That's not what I call winning the drug war.
...
written by Todd, May 21, 2009
Actually, the most Recent Poll that was taken from a Nationally recognized company was the Zogby poll released on May 6, 2009 witch was commissioned by the conservative-leaning O'Leary Report, surveyed 3,937 voters and found 52 percent in favor of legalization. Only 37 percent opposed. The real question now is "How long should it take to change a law that has lost Majority support?". How can we claim to be a democracy with Minority views leading to the arrest and jailing of those that the Majority do not wish to prosecute? Here is the http to the Poll...http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may062009/mj_zogby_5-6-09.php

Write comment

busy