Aa
Marjuana legalization ? What do you think ?
Can Colorado create a legal market for marijuana?
Back in 1932, Colorado voters took to the polls and approved Amendment 7, a bill that legalized alcohol consumption and ended prohibition.
Now, 80 years later, the state is weighing Amendment 64, a voter proposition that would similarly legalize marijuana.
Colorado voters aren’t alone: Oregon and Washington will take up similar measures on Tuesday. If any of the three voter propositions succeed, they would put the an American state left of the Netherlands on marijuana policy – and upend the economics of a contraband market.
“It would be unprecedented,” said Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University whose research focuses on marijuana legalization. “If one of these things passed, the United States would be right out there in the front of the liberal reform movement for drugs.”
This isn’t the first time that a marijuana legalization effort has landed on a state ballot. In 2010, a similar proposal landed on a California ballot. Proposition 19 would have legalized the purchase and consumption of marijuana in the state.
Proposition 19 failed by a seven-point margin. Legal marijuana advocates say they learned lessons from that first state ballot, lessons that helped them land three new ballot initiatives in 2012.
“Proposition 19 definitely pushed the issue into the mainstream, and got people thinking about it,” said Morgan Fox, communications manager for the Marijuana Policy Project. “It taught us that the most effective message is one that shows prohibition doesn’t work, that it comes at a cost to communities and taxpayers.”
Seventeen states had efforts to land a marijuana legalization proposition on the ballot in 2012. Three of those – in Oregon, Washington and Colorado – succeeded.
In those states, both sides are now pitching voters on what it would mean to go beyond decriminalization. Marijuana sales and production would become a legal, regulated commodity.
“This is utterly unlike decriminalization,” Caulkins said. “This is legalizing personal consumption, but also setting up a scheme for a private marijuana sector [in the Washington and Colorado initiatives].”
They look to have some shot at success on Tuesday. A poll out Thursday, commissioned by a Seattle television station, found Washington voters to support legalization by a 19-point margin. A late October poll in Colorado saw the effort there to have 53 percent support and 43 percent opposition. More generally, Gallup polls have found national support for marijuana legalization to have steadily increased in recent decades. It hit a record high of 50 percent last October.
Supporters of marijuana legalization in Colorado have done what nearly every other politician has done this cycle: Focus on the positive economic impact of their proposal. Talk about small businesses. And above all, emphasize job creation.
“There are hundreds of thousands of jobs on the table, and a great deal of tax revenue,” said Tvert, co-director of the Colorado Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. “It would take profits away from drug cartels and direct them toward legitimate, Colorado businesses.”
In Colorado, Amendment 64 would put an excise tax on marijuana products. The Colorado Center on Law and Policy estimates the law would generate $46 million in new revenue while reducing law enforcement spending by $16 million. The law would direct the legislature to send the revenue generated by the excise tax to local school districts.
“When we saw alcohol prohibition fall, states began to repeal it first,” Tvert said. “They saw it was problematic and wasn’t working. The federal government followed a few years later.”
Opponents of the Colorado initiative worry about what it would mean for one state to legalize marijuana while its neighbors maintain much stricter regulation.
“Colorado is a place that promotes families coming here, and going skiing on the mountains,” said Laura Chapin, communications director for No on 64. “Now you’re going to be the state with the big marijuana industry.”
While the Colorado Democratic Party has endorsed the measure, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) opposes it. ”Amendment 64 has the potential to increase the number of children using drugs and would detract from efforts to make Colorado the healthiest state in the nation,” he told the Denver Post in September. “It sends the wrong message to kids that drugs are okay.”
Chapin also raised numerous logistical issues with the Colorado legalization effort. For one, it’s a constitutional amendment: If there’s any problem with it, it would have to go back to voters for a change. The legislature’s hands would be tied.
Then there’s also the idea of the excise tax: The proposition would require the state legislature to pass a new fine on marijuana. Separate Colorado law, however, prohibits raising additional taxes without putting the issue to a statewide vote. “You cannot constitutionally require members of the legislature to vote for a tax in Colorado,” Chapin said.
The biggest logistical issue, however, is most likely how the federal government reacts. A state law legalizing marijuana would be preempted by federal laws that regulate the drug as an illegal substance.
The federal government would have to decide how aggressively, if at all, it would want to interfere with a state-level law.
“The next administration could essentially say, we’re not going to let this happen,” said Carnegie Mellon’s Caulkins. “Or they could take a position where they respect the voters. They could also just try to stop exports to other states, since you would have one place that becomes a lot more appealing place to do production.
While some have pushed Attorney General Eric Holder to take a solid position against the voter initiatives – a stance he took two years ago when the California amendment was on the ballot – he has not commented on the issue.
Tvert, in Colorado, is optimistic that they could have a positive working relationship with the federal government. The state recently established a regulatory system for medical marijuana, another law that conflicts with federal regulation. There, the Drug Enforcement Agency has essentially allowed medical sales to continue, albeit with some interference.
“The federal government has largely respected our state’s right to regulate and control the production and sale of medical marijuana,” he said. “They once did send letters to about 60 medical marijuana businesses, informing them that must relocate since they were within 1,000 feet of a school zone.”
Caulkins predicted that even one state legalizing marijuana would have dramatic effects on the drug’s national market, near certainly driving down prices as the intoxicant became more widely available.
“One of the things people don’t realize is that, in all likelihood, this will effect markets across the country,” he said. “Over five or so years, you’d expect this to start pushing prices down.”
States like Colorado and Washington would have the power to revoke licenses of those who transport marijuana across state lines. But as Caulkins pointed out, it’s a big challenge as there “aren’t walls between one state and another.”
Lower prices could stand to dramatically alter the marijuana market. If everyone can sell a cheap intoxicant, there’s a new premium on finding a niche market.
“If you end up in the situation where adding marijuana to a brownie is really cheap, like a penny or two, you could see someone capitalizing on that,” Caulkins said. “Maybe we’re not talking about Godiva Chocolates, but some enterprising business saying, ‘I can make more money getting people to spend $1 on a brownie than I can just selling marijuana.’”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/01/can-colorado-create-a-legal-market-for-marijuana/?wprss=rss_business
Back in 1932, Colorado voters took to the polls and approved Amendment 7, a bill that legalized alcohol consumption and ended prohibition.
Now, 80 years later, the state is weighing Amendment 64, a voter proposition that would similarly legalize marijuana.
Colorado voters aren’t alone: Oregon and Washington will take up similar measures on Tuesday. If any of the three voter propositions succeed, they would put the an American state left of the Netherlands on marijuana policy – and upend the economics of a contraband market.
“It would be unprecedented,” said Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University whose research focuses on marijuana legalization. “If one of these things passed, the United States would be right out there in the front of the liberal reform movement for drugs.”
This isn’t the first time that a marijuana legalization effort has landed on a state ballot. In 2010, a similar proposal landed on a California ballot. Proposition 19 would have legalized the purchase and consumption of marijuana in the state.
Proposition 19 failed by a seven-point margin. Legal marijuana advocates say they learned lessons from that first state ballot, lessons that helped them land three new ballot initiatives in 2012.
“Proposition 19 definitely pushed the issue into the mainstream, and got people thinking about it,” said Morgan Fox, communications manager for the Marijuana Policy Project. “It taught us that the most effective message is one that shows prohibition doesn’t work, that it comes at a cost to communities and taxpayers.”
Seventeen states had efforts to land a marijuana legalization proposition on the ballot in 2012. Three of those – in Oregon, Washington and Colorado – succeeded.
In those states, both sides are now pitching voters on what it would mean to go beyond decriminalization. Marijuana sales and production would become a legal, regulated commodity.
“This is utterly unlike decriminalization,” Caulkins said. “This is legalizing personal consumption, but also setting up a scheme for a private marijuana sector [in the Washington and Colorado initiatives].”
They look to have some shot at success on Tuesday. A poll out Thursday, commissioned by a Seattle television station, found Washington voters to support legalization by a 19-point margin. A late October poll in Colorado saw the effort there to have 53 percent support and 43 percent opposition. More generally, Gallup polls have found national support for marijuana legalization to have steadily increased in recent decades. It hit a record high of 50 percent last October.
Supporters of marijuana legalization in Colorado have done what nearly every other politician has done this cycle: Focus on the positive economic impact of their proposal. Talk about small businesses. And above all, emphasize job creation.
“There are hundreds of thousands of jobs on the table, and a great deal of tax revenue,” said Tvert, co-director of the Colorado Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. “It would take profits away from drug cartels and direct them toward legitimate, Colorado businesses.”
In Colorado, Amendment 64 would put an excise tax on marijuana products. The Colorado Center on Law and Policy estimates the law would generate $46 million in new revenue while reducing law enforcement spending by $16 million. The law would direct the legislature to send the revenue generated by the excise tax to local school districts.
“When we saw alcohol prohibition fall, states began to repeal it first,” Tvert said. “They saw it was problematic and wasn’t working. The federal government followed a few years later.”
Opponents of the Colorado initiative worry about what it would mean for one state to legalize marijuana while its neighbors maintain much stricter regulation.
“Colorado is a place that promotes families coming here, and going skiing on the mountains,” said Laura Chapin, communications director for No on 64. “Now you’re going to be the state with the big marijuana industry.”
While the Colorado Democratic Party has endorsed the measure, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) opposes it. ”Amendment 64 has the potential to increase the number of children using drugs and would detract from efforts to make Colorado the healthiest state in the nation,” he told the Denver Post in September. “It sends the wrong message to kids that drugs are okay.”
Chapin also raised numerous logistical issues with the Colorado legalization effort. For one, it’s a constitutional amendment: If there’s any problem with it, it would have to go back to voters for a change. The legislature’s hands would be tied.
Then there’s also the idea of the excise tax: The proposition would require the state legislature to pass a new fine on marijuana. Separate Colorado law, however, prohibits raising additional taxes without putting the issue to a statewide vote. “You cannot constitutionally require members of the legislature to vote for a tax in Colorado,” Chapin said.
The biggest logistical issue, however, is most likely how the federal government reacts. A state law legalizing marijuana would be preempted by federal laws that regulate the drug as an illegal substance.
The federal government would have to decide how aggressively, if at all, it would want to interfere with a state-level law.
“The next administration could essentially say, we’re not going to let this happen,” said Carnegie Mellon’s Caulkins. “Or they could take a position where they respect the voters. They could also just try to stop exports to other states, since you would have one place that becomes a lot more appealing place to do production.
While some have pushed Attorney General Eric Holder to take a solid position against the voter initiatives – a stance he took two years ago when the California amendment was on the ballot – he has not commented on the issue.
Tvert, in Colorado, is optimistic that they could have a positive working relationship with the federal government. The state recently established a regulatory system for medical marijuana, another law that conflicts with federal regulation. There, the Drug Enforcement Agency has essentially allowed medical sales to continue, albeit with some interference.
“The federal government has largely respected our state’s right to regulate and control the production and sale of medical marijuana,” he said. “They once did send letters to about 60 medical marijuana businesses, informing them that must relocate since they were within 1,000 feet of a school zone.”
Caulkins predicted that even one state legalizing marijuana would have dramatic effects on the drug’s national market, near certainly driving down prices as the intoxicant became more widely available.
“One of the things people don’t realize is that, in all likelihood, this will effect markets across the country,” he said. “Over five or so years, you’d expect this to start pushing prices down.”
States like Colorado and Washington would have the power to revoke licenses of those who transport marijuana across state lines. But as Caulkins pointed out, it’s a big challenge as there “aren’t walls between one state and another.”
Lower prices could stand to dramatically alter the marijuana market. If everyone can sell a cheap intoxicant, there’s a new premium on finding a niche market.
“If you end up in the situation where adding marijuana to a brownie is really cheap, like a penny or two, you could see someone capitalizing on that,” Caulkins said. “Maybe we’re not talking about Godiva Chocolates, but some enterprising business saying, ‘I can make more money getting people to spend $1 on a brownie than I can just selling marijuana.’”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/01/can-colorado-create-a-legal-market-for-marijuana/?wprss=rss_business
Thank you OH, the $$$$$ is exactly my point as well as the money that would be saved from decriminalization as you have pointed out above, also cutting the profit that the cartels are racking in which keep there other enterprises afloat, which as all of you know are drugs we would like to get rid of in this country, I believe that we could take that money and put it to good use here in the US.
I do fear that if it passes though, that we here in CO will feel the wrath of the federal government, including cracking down on the MMJ in this state as it is still against federal law.
Now just because I mentioned the government doesn't mean that I want this conversation into politics LOL
I do fear that if it passes though, that we here in CO will feel the wrath of the federal government, including cracking down on the MMJ in this state as it is still against federal law.
Now just because I mentioned the government doesn't mean that I want this conversation into politics LOL
" I re-posted the phrase you posted, which could have been taken a few ways, "
Right, and it seems lately you like to see my words in the worst way possible.
Please quit.
Take a breather before you post.
I am a mature adult. Why in the world would you jump to an assumption that my words meant I approve of driving under the influence?
We were talking about legalization.
I've not had to explain and re-explain myself to anyone on this forum, like I have with you.
Right, and it seems lately you like to see my words in the worst way possible.
Please quit.
Take a breather before you post.
I am a mature adult. Why in the world would you jump to an assumption that my words meant I approve of driving under the influence?
We were talking about legalization.
I've not had to explain and re-explain myself to anyone on this forum, like I have with you.
Years ago, I recall reading that marijuana made more money than all the rest of California's agricultural crops.
Mendocino county had a model program set up by the sheriff, with strict regulations for growing plants and supplying permits for $50/ plant.
However the feds raided the county last Fall.
From Jan. 2012
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Mendocino-County-eliminates-pot-growing-permits-2803379.php#ixzz2BOs2cHqJ
Mendocino County, crumpled under pressure from the feds and stripped itself of more than a half-million dollars in annual pot income.
To give you another idea about the profit to be gained, this is from Dec, 2010, about just one city in California.
www.theweedblog.com/how-much-money-does-oakland-get-from-medical-marijuana/
The city’s finance wizards are projecting that Oakland’s three dispensaries will sell between $35 million and $38 million worth in marijuana this year.
The total has been climbing since the city started keeping track in 2004, when the dispensaries paid tax on $4.2 million worth of sales. The figures are derived from the business tax that is paid to the city by the medical marijuana dispensaries on their gross receipts.
Mendocino county had a model program set up by the sheriff, with strict regulations for growing plants and supplying permits for $50/ plant.
However the feds raided the county last Fall.
From Jan. 2012
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Mendocino-County-eliminates-pot-growing-permits-2803379.php#ixzz2BOs2cHqJ
Mendocino County, crumpled under pressure from the feds and stripped itself of more than a half-million dollars in annual pot income.
To give you another idea about the profit to be gained, this is from Dec, 2010, about just one city in California.
www.theweedblog.com/how-much-money-does-oakland-get-from-medical-marijuana/
The city’s finance wizards are projecting that Oakland’s three dispensaries will sell between $35 million and $38 million worth in marijuana this year.
The total has been climbing since the city started keeping track in 2004, when the dispensaries paid tax on $4.2 million worth of sales. The figures are derived from the business tax that is paid to the city by the medical marijuana dispensaries on their gross receipts.
For goodness sakes, please stop twisting my words.
Of course I don't think people should drive impaired, whether it's on alcohol, pot, prescription drugs, when they're too tired or anything else that makes them not alert when driving. My dad died in a car accident and I don't take driving lightly.
Why do I have to even answer such a silly question ? Give me a break.
Um, I didn't twist your words. I reposted the phrase you posted, which could have been taken a few ways, one was that you were minimizing driving while under the influence of MJ, that's why I came right out and asked, rather than assuming.
The conversation was going on....kind of minimizing the dangers of driving while smoking pot. The info Mike posted actually indicated that MJ makes one a SAFER driver, and you referred to it...I think it was a fair question.
No need to be so touchy!
Of course I don't think people should drive impaired, whether it's on alcohol, pot, prescription drugs, when they're too tired or anything else that makes them not alert when driving. My dad died in a car accident and I don't take driving lightly.
Why do I have to even answer such a silly question ? Give me a break.
Um, I didn't twist your words. I reposted the phrase you posted, which could have been taken a few ways, one was that you were minimizing driving while under the influence of MJ, that's why I came right out and asked, rather than assuming.
The conversation was going on....kind of minimizing the dangers of driving while smoking pot. The info Mike posted actually indicated that MJ makes one a SAFER driver, and you referred to it...I think it was a fair question.
No need to be so touchy!
I tend to agree with you adgal, I guess its just that fear of having everyone walking around like zombies that is probably not realistic but still makes ya nervous. You make good points. All do. I have seen sick people use it and have gotten great relief from their illness. In fact I know a brain surgeon that recommends a good stiff shot for everything from an aching back to someone who is terminal. And that is a doctor! Works too~ lol
I think it's a tough one. I actually have quite a hatred of drugs and alcohol. Like SM, it's impacted my life and quite frankly, alcohol especially created a pretty messed up childhood for me. My dad is a recovering alcoholic, and was a mean abusive one. Alcohol is what had me put in foster care, my family destroyed - I hate all mind altering substances.
The only reason I am pro decriminilization is because of my strong belief addiction is a medical issue and we are genetically predisposed towards it. There is a lot of evidence to support it. As you said, some can use without it becoming problematic, others cannot. I can have a glass of wine and leave it at that. Others won't stop after 1 until they have drank every ounce in the house. There is a lot of easy access treatment for alcoholism, and I would like that to be the case with drug addiction as well. And I still cannot figure out how putting a user in jail helps the situation. Now, that does not mean that crimes committed under the influence should be excused - not at all. Just that using in itself shouldn't be criminal. I think age restrictions should be in place, dui laws tougher, etc etc. But as for the actual usage? I want the resources freed up to go hard and heavy after dealers. To me, they are the true criminal - someone used the word vultures I believe. I agree 100%.
So it's not that I am pro using - I'm not. I just see the solution not lying in the law, but in other areas.
The only reason I am pro decriminilization is because of my strong belief addiction is a medical issue and we are genetically predisposed towards it. There is a lot of evidence to support it. As you said, some can use without it becoming problematic, others cannot. I can have a glass of wine and leave it at that. Others won't stop after 1 until they have drank every ounce in the house. There is a lot of easy access treatment for alcoholism, and I would like that to be the case with drug addiction as well. And I still cannot figure out how putting a user in jail helps the situation. Now, that does not mean that crimes committed under the influence should be excused - not at all. Just that using in itself shouldn't be criminal. I think age restrictions should be in place, dui laws tougher, etc etc. But as for the actual usage? I want the resources freed up to go hard and heavy after dealers. To me, they are the true criminal - someone used the word vultures I believe. I agree 100%.
So it's not that I am pro using - I'm not. I just see the solution not lying in the law, but in other areas.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
