If marijuana is legalized in November, what do you think will be the impact? (Sacramento: high crime, lawyers)

[MotleyCrew]

Maybe folks will finally slow down on the freeway. Hmm, thinking maybe your car insurance may actually go up. LOL

[Beaconowner]

I'm not sure I get our logic Dub D. Yes the prison guards pay taxes, but I think you will agree that there are far more prisoners than guards, and those folks used to have jobs, but instead of paying taxes, they are now costing the state for their incarceration. If they were out, or not in prison in the first place, the state would make far more money in taxes from them as a net gain, whereas today, all the state gets is a net cost. Legalization will not only generate taxes, but it will also save on the expense side. One of the reasons the CA law enforcement groups are against this bill is because they fear that it will result in job loss. They don't believe that they will be re-directed to go after "real" criminals. They think that the still financially strapped communities they work for will lay them off and accept a smaller police force. I think they are likely correct in that assessment, but the answer for them must be retraining doing something productive, not continuing the drug war so they can draw a paycheck.

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Is that 56% of likely voters? If not, I wouldn't bet on it passing. The biggest proponents may forget to go to the polls or even where they are.

I know you think you asre funny but your not, pathethic example of the apathy you ascribe to others seems about right. . Most people today who imbibe are productive members of society. We have families, we care about our communities, and we look at our taxes going to the failed drug war, and are not happy. Current policies continue to keep cannabis available to minors, ruin lives, and cost valuable resources that could be going toward real solutions to education budget shortfalls, reducing taxes and harm reduction. There is nothing about the current situation to laugh about. Stop trying to perpetuate the silly stereotypes of the past and speak out about the real issues. Its your money, community, and future too.

[Dub D]

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

I'm not sure I get our logic Dub D. Yes the prison guards pay taxes, but I think you will agree that there are far more prisoners than guards, and those folks used to have jobs, but instead of paying taxes, they are now costing the state for their incarceration. If they were out, or not in prison in the first place, the state would make far more money in taxes from them as a net gain, whereas today, all the state gets is a net cost. Legalization will not only generate taxes, but it will also save on the expense side. One of the reasons the CA law enforcement groups are against this bill is because they fear that it will result in job loss. They don't believe that they will be re-directed to go after "real" criminals. They think that the still financially strapped communities they work for will lay them off and accept a smaller police force. I think they are likely correct in that assessment, but the answer for them must be retraining doing something productive, not continuing the drug war so they can draw a paycheck.

Most prisoners have been in and out of prison their entire life's. What job can they really get in the workforce? The government employs alot of people. If they can jobs then there will be more unemployment.

[Mr Floyd]

I'm getting hungry just thinking about it.

[Mr Floyd]

Seriously though. All conservative / religious thoughts aside...It will likely mean billions in revenue for a cash strapped state. Hopefully, the government won't "F" it up though. Let's face it. We are getting more anxious by the moment. Maybe we'll all mellow out a bit. And hey, alcoholism may go down too. An added bonus?

[Kense]

Originally Posted by impala666

But they dont, they smoke it and ALL smoke causes cancer.

Are you a physician? Obviously not, there is no proof that smoking Marijuana causes cancer, there are no documented cases and it's not "smoke" that causes cancer it's carcinogens from the burning, just like burnt meat is known to cause cancer. It's a chemical reaction, It's not the smoke itself. Tobacco and Marijuana are not the same AT ALL.


This will lower the crime rate pretty drastically.

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

I know you think you asre funny but your not, pathethic example of the apathy you ascribe to others seems about right. . Most people today who imbibe are productive members of society. We have families, we care about our communities, and we look at our taxes going to the failed drug war, and are not happy. Current policies continue to keep cannabis available to minors, ruin lives, and cost valuable resources that could be going toward real solutions to education budget shortfalls, reducing taxes and harm reduction. There is nothing about the current situation to laugh about. Stop trying to perpetuate the silly stereotypes of the past and speak out about the real issues. Its your money, community, and future too.

Really. It's like saying that everybody who drinks beer is some sort of drunk, and it's basically about as ignorant as the kinda thing Temperance folks used to believe during Prohibition. Or as the famous Prohibition crusader Carrie Nation once said, "Men are nicotine soaked, beer besmirched, whiskey greased, red-eyed devils"!

But OK, I will cop to the "red-eyed" part, if I haven't had my coffee yet...

[Mr Floyd]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Really. It's like saying that everybody who drinks beer is some sort of drunk, and it's basically about as ignorant as the kinda thing Temperance folks used to believe during Prohibition. Or as the famous Prohibition crusader Carrie Nation once said, "Men are nicotine soaked, beer besmirched, whiskey greased, red-eyed devils"!

But OK, I will cop to the "red-eyed" part, if I haven't had my coffee yet...

Temperance? Maybe, in the spirit of generalizations, all those chemicals are needed by men to tolerate certain shrew like people in their lives. I'm just saying...

[Azalea City Man]

Uh, we are skipping the preface of all of this. Why is it the government's role (federal or state) to tell an indivdual human what he or she can or cannot put into his or her own body?

Protect me as a consumer of goods, like food and drug regulation. Protect me with a military and/or police. Build roads, damns, infastructure. Provide safety-net services for the population at large (like SS, Medicare). Do all of this with my tax dollars that I put in, that is all good.

But do not tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body. If what I do has the potential to directly physically harm someone else, such as driving drunk or high, then arrest me. But there is no reason in hell that I should be worried about being arrested for smoking (or in prohibition days, drinking) in my own house or in areas designated ok by the general public.

/rant over