From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
Right now, everyone gets a cut, except the goverment
Published on March 16, 2004 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Politics
People have been debating the re-legalization of marijuana since the criminilizing of the very substance some of our most historical documents were written on, like the Declaration of Independence.


Now we face record deficits and a lack of funding for just about everything we need. The war(s) we are fighting, health care, education and just about anything else you can think of. Unless you want a piece of blatant pork, spent in a republican congressman's district, there probably is a shortfall of funding.

But what about marijuana? Could this, already used recreational substance give a much needed cash infusion to our system? Before jumping to "moral" conclusions on why the goverment shouldn't "endorse" pot smoking....what about the children?....and all that.....keep this in mind....

America repealed the 18th ammendment to re-legalize booze to help out with the depression and help pay for some of FDR's big programs. Taxing cigarettes is a big income source to every state in the union even as our goverment effectively preaches the dangers of smoking. So why not pot?


It is estimated that about 20 million americans smoke marijuana in much of the same way that millions of good americans drink. They do it responsibly, they do it prudentlyy and they do it relatively safely. Indeed, no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose and people who are high on pot aren't exactly known for doing anything worse than eating all the doritos.

If we are to equate 20 million smokers with say a joint a day (an average only), with each joint carrying a 1 dollar tax, we can figure out how much money legalization could raise.

The math is simple. We have 365 days a year. So 20 million times 365 would equal about 7.3 billion dollars. No, that won't cover the war, but that isn't the only part of the equation.

We spend about 20 billion annually on the drug war. Well over 1/2 of that involves marijuana alone. Indeed, marijuana has been the soap box for law enforcement as it is the bulkiest, smelliest and often least profitable of all the drugs that they "fight."
So, now we are up about 18 billion when you figure in money not wasted on chaising ones own tail, which is what marijuana enforcement has long been. This would have covered the entire "reconstruction" budget for Iraq. This amount alone would justify the legalization. But wait, there's more!.......

Also contributing to the income stream will be the new businesses and employees all paying taxes and contributing to the general welfare. The goverment will get to issue a new kind of "business license" which will bring in revenue. Plus, i'm sure they can come up with other little fees and such to boost our numbers even higher. The goverment is always good for that.

Of course, I know that this little article doesn't cover all the issues. But at the end of the day, keeping marijuana illegal and jipping the goverment out of it's fair share while a 70 year old "war" against it has been less than fruitless, seems rather stupid.


By the way, if you enjoyed this...check out my other articles on the subject...some are true stories like " Can You Buy Pot On the Internet?" and "Smuggling Pot from Jamaica- A True Story" both of which can be found on this very blog site. Just check out the articles list at the top or click the links below to be instantly transported.



Link




Link






Comments (Page 6)
6 PagesFirst 4 5 6 
on Oct 20, 2006
I dont see that all marijuana laws are unreasonable, but I do see in many places they are becoming very reasonable. - Xythe

In Missouri, marijuana charges are not taken in by any municipal court except in Columbia (pop. 70,000 home of the Mizzou Tigers). Because of this, all marijuana charges are sent directly to the county courts which look at posession as a criminal infraction. The first charge of marijuana possession of less then 35 grams can land someone in jail for ten days or 40 hours of community service and a stiff fine (and the payment for community service and a four hour 'drug program'). That is unreasonable.

In Columbia, possession of marijuana under 35 grams is addressed at the municipal level and treated as a $90.00 parking ticket. That's as reasonable as a $90.00 ticket for Minor in Possession of alcohol.

If a person happens to have marijuana in seperate baggies, that's seen as 'intent to distribute' which means you're automatically looking at a class c felony. You can be a convicted felon for holding marijuana in two seperate containers on or about your person. That is unreasonable.

I had an acquaintence I knew from Central Missouri State University. He very much enjoyed his marijuana. He was a decent student and didn't really do too much but study, smoke, and play a lot of guitar. He received FAFSA (student financial aid which nearly every college student must have to help pay for schooling these days). He was arrested for Marijuana posession and because of that, he has been denied FAFSA eligibility.

He can no longer afford school, graduate, and become a high school music teacher because of a roach. That is unreasonable.

In your area and some others, Xythe, things may be going swimmingly, but not here, and not at the Federal level.

Legalize and tax does in fact work...simply have a look at what takes place here in CA. - Xythe

I don't see the legalize and tax paradigm accurately presented by the Northbay Wellness Group. I don't see where anything is sold or taxed or even legalized except for those with certain illnesses covered under the '96 Compassionate Use Act.

on Oct 20, 2006
I don't see the legalize and tax paradigm accurately presented by the Northbay Wellness Group. I don't see where anything is sold or taxed or even legalized except for those with certain illnesses covered under the '96 Compassionate Use Act.


Im not sure what you are saying here but:

Marijuana is in fact taxed, and that is a fact as shown by the Compasion Act of '96. In addition, the distribution points (North Bay Wellness) pay taxes like any other business. The consumers pay sales tax and employees pay income tax. And guess wht, the government is not growing the stuff.

Look. At least in the state of CA, an entire sociological/economical system is being built as a result of growing and producing marijuana up to packaging and shipping up to the point of sale. This includes doctors writing referrals that the state endorses; The state implementing and honoring systems that licenses people to perscribe, grow, purchace, consume, possess, and sell marijuana. Its big money and its big taxes.

It costs me about $200/yr just to recieve my yearly referral from my doctor, and renew my state certification. Yes, I suffer from chronic stress Dont everybody at some point?

The state of CA is big enough to stick up for its residents in need. Its a shame other states wont do the same for its citizens
on Oct 20, 2006
hey xythe,,,get me one of them cards! lol


Let me know what county in CA you are in and I'll set you up
on Oct 20, 2006
what county in CA you are in


D'oH!
on Oct 20, 2006
Marijuana is in fact taxed, and that is a fact as shown by the Compasion Act of '96. - Xythe

The Act added Section 11362.5 to the California Health and Safety Code, that's it. I can't find any additions made to Californian tax code providing instruction on the taxation of Marijuana.

I am very curious as to if 'wellness' is truly being shared (as they say at the Website) at NWG or if it is sold. If it is sold then one could say it is being taxed via sales tax. (If there is a conflict with you providing such information, then feel free to skip this point - but it is important)

It is still a controlled substance 'for medicinal use' - which though we know to be a very broad term to the point of allowing nearly anyone access to marijuana it is still not the same as full legalization.

The Federal Government still makes prosecutions against Marijuana users via the Controlled Substances Act (of 1972, I believe), and they've trampled state's rights time and again resulting in the suspension of operation of such 'cannabis dispensiaries' as NWG.

The state implementing and honoring systems that licenses people to perscribe, grow, purchace, consume, possess, and sell marijuana. - Xythe

I'll need to see some links or if you could please provide me some direction to sources, I'll be glad to look. I would think High Times would write an article detailing marijuana supply chains in California but I've never seen such an article whenever I infrequently pick one up off the magazine rack at my local Hastings.

The state of CA is big enough to stick up for its residents in need. Its a shame other states wont do the same for its citizens
- Xythe

The state of CA is 'big enough' to do whatever the heck it wants with a GDP the size of most countries. I don't necessarily agree with marijuana being a need, but it should be treated as a practical health issue, not a highly impractical criminal issue.
on Oct 20, 2006
Deference -

Understand that it is common knowledge that CA supports a medical marijuana program. Its licensed by the state of CA and dispensaries are dotted across the state. I'm not sure, but it sounds like you are syaing the state would support a program without implementing a tax structure in addition to using the tax laws that have been in place for what seems forever?

Feel free to use google and I'm certain you will find all you need.
on Oct 20, 2006
I don't know a thing about the system the State of California may have set up but I don't have any information about it.

I don't know how cannabis dispensiaries are run, what licensing one must obtain to run one, or how or what one buys for how much leading one to wonder how it is taxed. I'm fuzzy on whether these groups are run more as private businesses that buy from the state or if they are run wholly by the state or contracted out as third parties.

No matter, thanks for your time, Xythe!

on Oct 20, 2006
No matter


yeah,,,let's get it legal,,,then worry bout the tax system.

but i would gladly pay a 100% or 200% tax to not have to look over my shoulder just to burn one and relax.

the same reasoning i used when i switched to online gambling 5 or 6 years ago. i didn't mind paying taxes on my winnings knowing i was "legal." it also ensured a "pay as you go" system where one never has to worry bout leg breakers cause ya bet what ya didn't have.

as a sinner, i don't mind sin taxes. what i mind is the govt telling me what i am allowed to do with myself in my supposedly "free" time.
on Oct 23, 2006
I can't find any additions made to Californian tax code providing instruction on the taxation of Marijuana. - Me

This is relevant, as it is via the tax code Henry Anslinger (our first drug czar) affectively made marijuana illegal.

on Oct 23, 2006
They die from lung cancer caused by smoke in your lungs.


This is incorrect. They die of lung cancer from the "carcinogens" contained in the smoke from a cigarette! Marijuana smoke does NOT have them! It has NOT been shown or proven that smoking pot will give you lung cancer. If you're against smoking pot, that's fine. But do a little research next time first before you run off at the mouth.


There are 19 known carcinogenic compounds in cigarettes.[1] The following are some of the most potent carcinogens:

Benzopyrene is a mutagenic compound which is highly carcinogenic. It is formed during the incomplete combustion of organic matter.

Nitrosamine is a carcinogenic compound found in cigarette smoke but not in uncured tobacco leaves. Nitrosamine forms on flue-cured tobacco leaves during the curing process through a chemical reaction between nicotine and other compounds contained in the uncured leaf and various oxides of nitrogen found in all combustion gases. However, switching to indirect-fire curing has been shown to reduce nitrosamine to undetectable levels (less than 0.1 part per million).
6 PagesFirst 4 5 6