CA Could Lead Our Way Out of the Depression: Legalize Marijuana

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 06:47:00 AM EST
Tags: marijuana reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Times-Standard reporter Dave Santcliff writes that California could lead the nation out of the depression by legalizing marijuana:

Right now Californians pay $170 million a year for arrests, prosecution and imprisonment of pot offenders, according to statistics released from NORML. Poof! That would go up in smoke, and reduce the prison population as well.

Right now there's talk among lawmakers of an early release program for as many as 58,000 prisoners in the next couple of years because of overcrowding and fiscal shortfalls. There are plenty of good reasons to support AB 390.

As It Stands, it's time to legalize marijuana and jumpstart California's sagging economy into the 21st century.

[More...]

On a related topic, Steven Greenhut in the East Valley Tribune, an Arizona paper, says the only way to end the drug violence across the Mexican border is to legalize marijuana.

[I]t’s the illegality of drugs that makes them so lucrative, and which assures that only the most vicious gangsters will thrive as the price goes ever higher. Even those Americans who see Mexico merely in terms of illegal immigration ought to broaden their horizons. If the lawlessness down south isn’t reduced, pressure will increase for immigration, legal or otherwise, as more Mexicans seek refuge from the violence outside their doors.
Americans need to stop being so childish about drug issues. Yes, drugs are bad, but some people will always use them. Government cannot stop this desire, and government interdiction efforts only succeed in raising the price of the contraband, which leads to an even bigger reason to violently fight it out over the market. It provides the money needed to buy off cops and corrupt an entire justice system.

< The Economist Calls for an End to the Drug War | Ward Churchill Trial Against C.U. Begins Today >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

CA Could Lead Our Way Out of the Depression: Legalize Marijuana | 20 comments (20 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Works for me (none / 0) (#1)
by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 03:01:08 AM EST

I'm surprised that Obama hasn't thought of it.

: It would (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:55:13 AM EST

reduce gov't power and influence over individuals. That is not his thing.

All being driven by the economy (none / 0) (#3)
by SeeEmDee on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 06:36:53 AM EST

And we'll see even more of this in the very near future, as the economic situation worsens.

The DrugWar, never being vital to the nation's defense, can be best be likened to a "rich man's hobby" that is dependent upon the rich man having enough 'expendable income' to indulge in it. In this case, Uncle Sam was the 'rich man', throwing money into something that couldn't possibly work. Might as well have spent the money trying to build perpetual motion machines, at least nobody would have gotten killed, some of them kids.

Well, the 'rich man' ain't so rich, anymore. In fact, when he opens his wallet, he hears a sucking sound as air rushes in to fill the vacuum. And printing up more currency to provide the illusion of solvency isn't an answer. That only drives the inflation deeper into the economy like a poison-coated dagger.

It's long past time for Uncle to bite the bullet, admit he was wrong about drug prohibition, and end this nonsense. The nation desperately needs the revenue. And the narcos are getting bolder and more dangerous by the day; they've already carried out 'hits' on rivals on US soil, masquerading as, of all things, police.

The proceeds from illicit drugs are what makes such things possible, and to maintain drug prohibition based on (faux) moral grounds, in light of what that prohibition has created, is no longer supportable.

It's long time to put the rabid dog down, before it bites anyone else.

Now that's what I call... (none / 0) (#4)
by kdog on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 08:20:10 AM EST

a green economy.

Why aren't we looking at hemp either? That's another foolishly forbidden crop that could possibly boost our economy.

35% of hempseed is oil. (none / 0) (#5)
by SeeEmDee on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 08:44:00 AM EST

Hempseeds have the highest oil-to-mass ratio in the plant world, thus hempseed oil could be easily converted into biodiesel fuel. Hemp doesn't need anywhere near the amount of (highly toxic) concoctions necessary to produce it, not like, say, cotton. That would tip the balance of industrial power towards the domestic, agrarian sector as opposed to the present internationalist oil sector.

Needless to say, some folks making their money off of crude oil might not like that...

: the logging and paper industries (none / 0) (#8)
by of1000Kings on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:07:50 PM EST

are not big fans of hemp either...for obvious reasons...
and as we see in America, it's more important to be for what's best for you, rather than what's best for the community as a whole...

the biggest obstacle (none / 0) (#6)
by cpinva on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 09:30:19 AM EST

faced, by those who advocate legalization of pot, is the nearly 80 years of official demonization of it, by the government. starting with harry anslinger, and his film epic "Reefer Madness", pot has consistently been described (by officialdom) as almost on par with heroin.

this will be a hard psychological hurdle to overcome, for both legislatures and their constituents. how to explain that they were "just kidding" about the evils of pot all these years? if pot is that horrible, how could they even consider legalizing it? if it really isn't that horrible, how do they justify having made it illegal all these years?

as well, there are too many groups that have a financial vested interest in keeping as many things illegal as possible.

woe be to the politician who attempst to extract cash from their clutching paws!

The next bubble? (none / 0) (#7)
by ruffian on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 10:17:45 AM EST

I was wondering what new frontiers would be explored. Why not one that already has a shadow economy?

Growing, selling, etc., would still be illegal (none / 0) (#9)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:41:24 PM EST

for the average Joe, under SB 390.

Only licensed growers (read: those that buy a $5000 license, and renew it for $2500/year) could do it:

SECTION 1. (f) To impose substantial fines for violations of the noncommercial regulations and laws concerning marijuana, which will be applicable until and after commercial marijuana is available by virtue of future changes in federal law.

25401. (a) The department shall license commercial cultivators
of marijuana. The fee for the license shall be set at an amount that
will reasonably cover to costs of assuring compliance with the
regulations to be issued, but may not exceed five thousand dollars
($5,000) for an initial application, or two thousand five hundred
dollars ($2,500) per year for each annual renewal.

Commercial (none / 0) (#10)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:50:45 PM EST

The department shall license commercial cultivators

Growing for personal use would be fine.


10 Plants (none / 0) (#11)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:59:41 PM EST

(b) Marijuana may be cultivated only in a location in the home
or yard in which the marijuana is not visible from any public place.
For purposes of this paragraph, "public place" does not include
air space, or any place from which a viewer would violate the
cultivator's legitimate expectation of privacy.
(c) Each person 21 years of age or older may have in cultivation
no more than 10 mature plants at any given time.


You're right. Page 35, nice catch. (none / 0) (#12)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 03:33:00 PM EST

My eyes had long tired out long before...


Although (none / 0) (#13)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 03:38:25 PM EST

My guess is that if this ever gets traction, the growers will lobby to eliminate this clause.


Which growers? Aren't they all criminal gangs? (none / 0) (#14)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 04:50:06 PM EST

Not sure how well their lobby would be received on capitol hill.

Anyway, not that this legislation will get passed, but if it did, my guess would be they would allow home-grown the same as they allow home-brewed and home-vinted.


no (none / 0) (#15)
by CST on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:32:51 PM EST

Not unless you consider the medi-pot industry in CA run by "criminal gangs". If I recall correctly, last time I was in so. CA every house had a plant or two. Is everyone in CA in a criminal gang???

Also, most violent crime associated with drugs comes from hard drugs. There just isn't enough of a mark-up on pot and it's too widely available for turf wars. So yes, I'd say criminals (since they are breaking the law), but not so much on the gangs.


: Good point about the medi-pot growers. (none / 0) (#17)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:42:48 PM EST

I forgot about them. I guess I was thinking mostly of the TL quote above:
which assures that only the most vicious gangsters will thrive as the price goes ever higher.
It seemed incongruous for these types to be lobbying much in Sacramento.
Regardless, not sure why you seemed to take so much offense.

Competing Interests and Power (none / 0) (#16)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:38:05 PM EST

Until 1978, it was illegal to home-brew liquour or beer--and the rules on wine-making were somewhat ambiguous.* But a growing number of oenophiles and beer connoisseurs wanted to make their own, and they helped pressure Congress to decriminalize home-brews across the country.
Today, federal rules say a household with two adults can brew up to 200 gallons of wine and the same amount of beer each year. (A few states have their own laws prohibiting the practice.) The 1978 law didn't legalize moonshining, though; you still can't brew spirits for private consumption. It is kosher, however, to own a still and process alcohol--but only if you're using the alcohol as fuel and you have a permit from the ATF. (In some states, you can purchase a legal version of moonshine from commercial distillers.)

Still, I would not be surprised if once the so called "gangs" become corporations that the laws regarding a personal growing allowance would change from the CA model legislation.


Right after the 1978 feds did their thing (none / 0) (#18)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:59:29 PM EST

CA legalized home-brewing and vinting. SB607 passed last year which further lifted home-vinting restrictions.

I think any pot "gangs" becoming legit businesses would do so after hell freezes over and pot became legal, not during the months and years before the bill becomes law which is the time when any such lobbying about the bill would take place.

What "gang" would go "legit" when there's absolutely no guarantee the bill would ever become law and pot would ever be legalized?

That said, as CST points out, there is a bunch of med-pot in CA. Who grows it? If they're legit, they may well try to lobby as you say.

However, home beer and wine is legal in CA. Growing your own hops, malt, grapes, etc., is also perfectly legal. I'd be very surprised if growing your own was not legalized when if and when hell does freeze over and commercial production is legalized.

At least that's what makes sense to me...


: Gangs (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 06:13:45 PM EST

The commercial growers in Humboldt are hardly gangs, as far as I know. One thing I heard was that due to domestic restrictions on travel, courtesy of BushCo WOT, there has been a glut and the mob has taken advantage.
Anyway my hypothesis is only valid if MJ becomes legal. At that point it will become Corporate and the growers will protect the corporations as well as fight for their own interests.
People who escape tax, and corporate purchase of MJ, will be out gunned by the Commercial/corporate MJ mega biz. It is then that our freedom to grow may be restricted.
It is much easier to grow than most things. And considering that there is little processing involved many more would grow it themselves than would brew or make their own wine. The only reason I would purchase it would be for variety, despite the fact that I would grow my own.
Not that you have mentioned it but, tobacco is not a relevant comparison, because it is hard to grow and is heavily processed.

It wouldn't help the Mexican Wars (none / 0) (#20)
by Mikeb302000 on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:26:41 AM EST

I strongly favor legalizing pot. But I agree with those who have pointed out that the majority of violence in the drug wars is not about marijuana, it's over cocaine and heroin. So, although it may not be a solution to the Mexican wars, it would go a long way towards healing the terrible damage of the war on drugs in America.