[Corbin Dallas]

Originally Posted by N6ATF

Nope. The criminal legislature will intentionally overestimate the amount of revenue it would bring, just like every other tax increase or tax creation, use that false prediction to increase state spending 500% over the actual revenue, well in advance of the first penny ever making it to the treasury, and we'd still be royally frakked.

Really? I wonder if this was the same arguement during prohibition?


Right now this state gets exactly 0% of tax revenue from the sale of marijuana.

IF (and it's a big one) MJ is legalized and companies begin to make marijuana cigarettes / blunts / etc, the state will impose a tax on each pack sold.

How many packs of marijuana cigarettes do you think will sell the first year???

Exactly...

Currently this state gets an estimated $122M in taxes from cigarette sales. Consider the notion that one could tax marijuana at a higher rate over cigarettes and it would still be less expensive than what they are spending right now.

EDIT: I was WAY off on my estimates of tax revenue.

There would be a $50 per ounce tax on the retail sale and production of marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older that would raise nearly $1.4 billion in annual revenue, according to the California Board of Equalization.

source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/cali...nclick_check=1


Sorry to be slightly off topic, but my whole point of this is the lopsided-ness of our government.

Point of fact:

1) State is broke
2) Politics are broken

Resolution:

a) Shall issue CCW = Legal means of self defense and potentially less crime.
b) Legalized marijuana = tax revenue and definately less crime from illegal drug sales.

End game:

a) State is in a better financial position
b) Less drug related crime in this state
c) Potentially less violent crime in this state

[Pixs]

Originally Posted by Aegis

In general liberal Democrats are trying to destroy the 2A. There are a few Republicans that are not much better when it comes to the 2A, but Republicans generally support the 2A rights of the American people. The biggest opponents of the 2A are usually liberal Democrats. Just take a look at the voting records on a federal and state level.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Evil lurks on both sides of the isle. Maybe it should be "anti gun politicians" that could better be described as paranoid media grabbers.

The problem with many liberal Democrats is that they have a selective interpretation of the constitution. How many left-wing groups and politicians still refuse to recognize the 2A as an individual right, even after Heller. When Schumer, Feinstein or Pelosi claim they want to preserve the constitution, they are lying.

Off hand right now, I can only think of the current governor of CA.

Originally Posted by bodger

So, how long have you been a pot smoking liberal Democrat gun owner anyway?

Just kidding.

Why do you ask, are you looking to score?
Also just kidding. I would really like to see all victimless crimes legalized, especially having fun with a pistol or rifle.

Originally Posted by dustoff31

So how is "welcoming support" from perjurers and prohibited possessors helping law abiding gun owners?

I see that you understand exactly how to be divisive. Many people have been banned from gun ownership that should not have been, they may not have had the right legal representation or it just could be that the folks at the DOJ of CA still believe that medical marijuana is still not legal.

Once again, the point is to get the anti Bill of Rights folks to see weapons ownership as not being a threat when rational, calm, law abiding, people exercise their right to own, use, and carry them. It really is hard to listen to a person that you perceive to be a raving lunatic. I'm not saying that you are but that people on the outside looking in see this. I don't believe anyone on this board is a threat to the public safety, just saying show them that you don't fly off the handle and can see their issues and would like the opportunity to prove them wrong.
Best to all,

Pixs

[Pixs]

Post #201 By Corbin Dallas

Thank you!

I saw a news special about Mendocino County a few months ago and IIRC, 60% of the population was involved in growing and distributing marijuana. The new gun in the county (Sheriff) went on a campaign to stop it. At the time of the report (I think it was 60 Minutes) the general consensus of all most everyone in the county was something like "what, are you insane", the county's economy would collapse. I'm not sure if he was asked to leave or get fired. Anyone out there know about this?

It was also pointed out that the biggest problem was illegal Mexican gang members were trying to set up farms on public lands in the back country. Unlike locals, they shoot first and don't ask questions. In the general public's mind, the two issues are tied together because of a hand full of illegal aliens (refuse to call them immigrants).

Marijuana is the largest cash crop in the state of CA folks.

Best to all

Pixs

[CSDGuy]

Last I checked, marijuana is still a Schedule I drug... The state of California can't change that.

[Cokebottle]

Pixs going on "ignore" list until he uses a font that doesn't make my head hurt trying to read it.

[N6ATF]

Originally Posted by Corbin Dallas

a) State is in a better financial position

This is what I question. Marijuana tax revenue may start coming in, but you can be damn sure the legislature will make a disproportionate increase in spending. So the state will not be in a better financial position, it will still be so far in the red it can never get out.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by N6ATF

This is what I question. Marijuana tax revenue may start coming in, but you can be damn sure the legislature will make a disproportionate increase in spending. So the state will not be in a better financial position, it will still be so far in the red it can never get out.

Bingo.

It's like giving a homeless guy $5.
It's not going to help him out of his predicament... it's only going to finance his next binge.

The "beast" needs to be starved and forced to cut back.
Arnold has grown the size of the government by 80% over when he took over.

[USAFTS]

"Legalized marijuana = tax revenue and definately less crime from illegal drug sales."

Seems to me (and many others, according to various resources available on line) that a legal, unobstructed trade of marijuana will afford the cartels to make considerably more pot money that will assist in the financing of their other drug and crime-related activities. Wouldn't this help the over-all drug and crime-rate go up?

Any input?

[curtisfong]

No. That isn't how the economics of eliminating a black market works.

[Corbin Dallas]

Originally Posted by USAFTS

"Legalized marijuana = tax revenue and definately less crime from illegal drug sales."

Seems to me (and many others, according to various resources available on line) that a legal, unobstructed trade of marijuana will afford the cartels to make considerably more pot money that will assist in the financing of their other drug and crime-related activities. Wouldn't this help the over-all drug and crime-rate go up?

Any input?

How does that work when the $50 bag now sells for $2?

The only reason it sells for $50 is because it's illegal.

Think back to the days of prohibition and moonshine.

Prohibition ended and so did the money.

[Corbin Dallas]

Originally Posted by N6ATF

This is what I question. Marijuana tax revenue may start coming in, but you can be damn sure the legislature will make a disproportionate increase in spending. So the state will not be in a better financial position, it will still be so far in the red it can never get out.

I conceed. But this is something WE as voters can fix.

When our legislature continues to spend us into oblivion, we need to vote them out.

Would you spend more money if you got more money?

[Noel]

Back in 68 I was arrested for 43 marijuana seeds on the floor of a car that I was just a passenger of… Not that I wasn’t high, but really! … Bad timing! That little number cost me $2300.00 and 2-½ years probation…

I don’t smoke pot any more, so it doesn’t make a lot difference to me personally, but economically, I think if they’re going to legalize it, then we should let our own farmers grow it… That way everybody can make some money off the weak society of potheads…

Speaking of making money off a weak society, boy are we going to mess with the official’s heads in Nevada…

[mblat]

Originally Posted by USAFTS

"Legalized marijuana = tax revenue and definately less crime from illegal drug sales."

Seems to me (and many others, according to various resources available on line) that a legal, unobstructed trade of marijuana will afford the cartels to make considerably more pot money that will assist in the financing of their other drug and crime-related activities. Wouldn't this help the over-all drug and crime-rate go up?

Any input?

And how much of alcohol trade cartels control? Close to zero? How come?

How much gambling cartels control in the State in Nevada? Nobody knows, but probably VERY low number. How come?

Of cause it is very simple. Mafia/cartels can't compete with corporations when it comes with production and distribution of legal and socially accepted product. Phillip Morris will be selling cheaper, safer more attractively packaged MJ than cartels could ever hope to deliver to an end user.

This is what I question. Marijuana tax revenue may start coming in, but you can be damn sure the legislature will make a disproportionate increase in spending. So the state will not be in a better financial position, it will still be so far in the red it can never get out.

Probably. So? Let's outlaw car sales because those bring very high amounts of sales tax to the State treasury?

[N6ATF]

Originally Posted by Corbin Dallas

Would you spend more money if you got more money?

Not if I were $999 trillion dollars* in debt.

*or whatever.

Originally Posted by mblat

So? Let's outlaw car sales because those bring very high amounts of sales tax to the State treasury?

Outlaw taxes, and make outlaws of anyone who imposes them.

[jdberger]

Not that I want to kick this thread back on topic or anything.....

But the antis are dancing in celebration of their victory....

From our friends at Freedom States Alliance:

CA: Gun Lobby Loses Big Concealed Weapons Bill (AB 357): Assemblyman Steve Knight’s Dangerous Bill Shot Down.

Which actually links to this article:

Knight's concealed gun bill shot down

SACRAMENTO • Assemblyman Steve Knight’s measure to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain concealed weapons permits was voted down Tuesday in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety.


Assembly Bill 357 would have ensured law-abiding citizens are treated fairly when applying for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. There are 58 counties and even more local law enforcement agencies throughout California that each have separate interpretations of who they believe can lawfully carry a concealed weapon.


Over 38 states stipulate that local law enforcement “shall issue” a permit if failsafe conditions are met, and what they have found is a reduction in violent crimes. It’s hard to dispute that criminals will avoid a conflict if they are unsure whether their victim is armed, according to a Knight press release. After Florida changed its laws in 1987 the state’s violent crime rate has gone down 30 percent.


But in California applicants must demonstrate “good cause,” which allows agencies to subjectively deny most, if not all, CCW permits, according to a Knight news release. California has one of the most stringent prerequisites to gain permission to carry a weapon for self defense, he said, including an extensive background check, firearm training, and in some cases face-to-face interviews.


“This is a fairness issue — when all the requirements are met for a CCW the local jurisdiction should honor our Constitution,” said Knight, R-Palmdale. "The arbitrary system of issuing conceal carry permits needs to be changed, and I will not give up on this issue."

To subscribe to the Daily Press in print or online, call (760) 241-7755 or click here.

[the_donald_]

It still amazes me that even with so much logic/common sense/statistical proof, that this fight is still being lost.

[Pixs]

Howdy Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
So? Let's outlaw car sales because those bring very high amounts of sales tax to the State treasury? end"

Great idea, look at all the deaths that cars cause. Poor innocent drunks and impatient people out there among the other victims of cars are dieing daily. Morons don't kill, it's their cars!

Best to all,

Pixs

[USAFTS]

Originally Posted by Corbin Dallas

How does that work when the $50 bag now sells for $2?

The only reason it sells for $50 is because it's illegal.

Think back to the days of prohibition and moonshine.

Prohibition ended and so did the money.

We have been spanked for being off topic so I stop with this post.

Do you think the bad-guys are going to sell their pot for $50? Do you think the bad guys are going to send along the taxable portion of their sales to the government? That is about as likely as the bad guys buying their guns at gun shops and then not committing crimes. The newly legal and "socially acceptable" cash crop will just be much easier for the bad guys to grow, transport and sell for similar prices that people are used to paying. The hard core pot-heads will grow their own and probably get greedy thinking they can sell it too. Maybe there will be so much weed on the street the price will fall to nothing, but I'd venture to say that we will experience an entirely new wave of crime that is directly related to this legal drug... Not to mention the message that it sends our kids. It's just a bad idea.

OK....Down from my soap-box. :-)

[7x57]

Originally Posted by the_donald_

It still amazes me that even with so much logic/common sense/statistical proof, that this fight is still being lost.

Nah. Even in pro-gun states it takes multiple attempts to pass. In CA, we have to keep hammering away. That's what the anti-gunners did. Some of the bills were introduced over and over again for decades before they happened to get lucky. What happens if we start betting where on snake eyes you pay me and on any other number nothing happens? That's the game we were playing since, well, longer than I've been alive.

7x57

[Cokebottle]

That's the problem with the anti's... and drivers licenses for illegals, etc....

Other than political credibility, there is no such thing as a "loss" in politics... only a victory or lack of victory that may ultimately become victory.
You can reintroduce a bill or ballot measure every session if you'd like. Worst case, you don't get the signatures for the ballot or it's killed in committee.
That's why we need to work through the courts to solidify our rights on current Constitutional bases... and in the courts, there certainly IS a win or loss.