Illegal crop could save California's economy and offset the deficit

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Of course politics will always outweigh common sense so don't expect anything to come from this.

SOURCE

The Audacity of Dope
Could legal marijuana save California’s economy?
By Jeff Segal Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 10:36am

Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps has made marijuana a popular topic. He was photographed smoking from a bong, lost corporate sponsorships, and was suspended from the sport as a result. But celebrities aren't the only ones thinking about dope.

Some legislators in California have pot on their minds, too. That's because the government of the biggest economy in the United States is facing a massive budget deficit whose pain would be alleviated by decriminalizing marijuana.

California's current deficit stands at a whopping $15 billion and is expected to reach $42 billion next year. And the state run by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has virtually run out of cash. It recently delayed $3.5 billion of payments to taxpayers and counties.

While nearly all U.S. states currently face budget shortfalls, California's deficit is more than one-third of its general fund. That's largely due to its dependence on income taxes, which slide during a recession. And the state can't easily borrow due to the government bond-market freeze. Moody's even warned it may downgrade the state's rating.

There's no easy fix to the problem, as any solution likely requires cutting benefits and social services—tough political choices for Schwarzenegger. But the state does have an abundant natural resource it may be able to draw on for help.

Marijuana is California's largest cash crop. It's valued at $14 billion annually, or nearly twice the value of the state's grape and vegetable crops combined, according to government statistics. Indeed, a recent report pegged marijuana as two-thirds of the economy of Mendocino County, a ganja hotbed north of San Francisco. That's not surprising—it costs $400 to grow a pound of pot that can sell for $6,000 on the street.

But the state doesn't receive any revenue from its cash cow. Instead, it spends billions of dollars enforcing laws pegged at shutting down the industry and inhibiting marijuana's adherents. Of course, there's a reason for that. Marijuana's social costs may include addiction and rehabilitation treatment and lost productivity. Yet these are minute compared with the extensive social costs of alcohol or tobacco.

Of course, just legalizing pot wouldn't automatically harvest revenues for the state. An organized system of regulating sales and collecting taxes would need implementing. And it's possible that general drug use could rise, though the debate that pot is a gateway drug to harder substances is inconclusive.

There's also the question of whether or not taxing marijuana would simply create a black market that would again skimp the state on taxes. The best corollaries here are cigarettes and alcohol. Rises in "sin taxes" on them have decreased consumption—a positive—but don't seem to have destabilized the legal market. Decriminalization could lead to some job losses in law enforcement, though the countervailing argument would see these forces put to work stopping harder crime.

So what are the numbers? A national legalization effort would save nearly $13 billion annually in enforcement costs and bring in $7 billion in yearly tax revenues, according to a study by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron. Since California represents 13 percent of the U.S. economy, those numbers suggest the state could save $1.7 billion in enforcement costs and nab up to $1 billion in revenues. That doesn't include any indirect revenues as, for example, rural farming communities grow or marijuana tourism, which has been lucrative for the Netherlands, takes off.

Put it all together, and California could potentially wipe some $3 billion off its budget deficit by letting its people puff and pay. That still leaves it with a gaping $39 billion hole to fill, so the state's problems go far beyond what a new cash crop can fix. But anything to help soothe the state's chronic fiscal pain—even if unpalatable to some—is worth considering.
Click to expand...
 
Spliff, mon. Ganja to save the world. Maybe the Rastafarians were right all along. :lol:
 
Hmmm...lets see. Marijuana is illegal according to Federal law. California wants to legalize it so that it can be taxed. I'll bet you anything from dollars to navy beans that, in ten years time, marijuana will be legalized in the US...Sad, but true. Since cigarette smokers are now pariahs, and are being systematically removed from the public eye, they'll need that tax money to fill the niche that they are driving tobacco out of. Not-to-mention the money needed for the 'stimulus bill'...:disgust2:
 
I've said for years that the answer to the drug "problem" is to legalize (and of course tax the shit out of) it then turn it over to the anti-tobacco folks. No one ever listens.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Hmmm...lets see. Marijuana is illegal according to Federal law. California wants to legalize it so that it can be taxed. I'll bet you anything from dollars to navy beans that, in ten years time, marijuana will be legalized in the US...Sad, but true. Since cigarette smokers are now pariahs, and are being systematically removed from the public eye, they'll need that tax money to fill the niche that they are driving tobacco out of. Not-to-mention the money needed for the 'stimulus bill'...:disgust2:
Click to expand...
Medical MJ, sure... within 10 years.
MJ for common use? I dunno about that one. The same people who won't allow someone to light up a cig in a bar, a restaurant, etc etc..certainly won't want people to light up a spliff.

The easiest way out would be to help people who farm illegally to change their ways and farm legal medical MJ. The profits on medical MJ is about the same as the illegal stuff, but for the privaledge of not having to tip-toe around the law, they'll be paying a tax on their profits.

I'm pretty sure that many of the illegals would trade one for the other - especially if you give them the additional incentive of avoiding jail-time for their previous growing/distribution/sale ..er..transgressions.
 
catocom said:
They tax everything else just about, even make up shit to tax, might as well.
Click to expand...

They'd tax sex, by the stroke, if they could. They're simply waiting for the invention of the implantable peter meter to record the activity.
 
Here's a laugh. Quebec now doesn`t allow you to smoke in a car with children in it. Also, it's illegal for a child to purchase tabacco. But ... it's not illegal for a child to smoke ... just to buy it. So, now, according to the law ... a 15 year old can smoke in your car with you, but you can't with him.

And you expect sanity from lawmakers???


California ... you want to be solvent? Run out all the illegals working under the table and not paying any tax (while still claiming welfare). Stop paying for illegals to give birth in your hospitals (while citizens pay thousands to have a leg set that was broken at their tax witholding job).
 
Professur said:
California ... you want to be solvent? Run out all the illegals working under the table and not paying any tax (while still claiming welfare). Stop paying for illegals to give birth in your hospitals (while citizens pay thousands to have a leg set that was broken at their tax witholding job).
Click to expand...

okay, well, show me the money. how much is CA spending on those folks? how much is CA spending on other things? what % of the budget are those horrible, horrible people?
 
The Ca budget shortfall id 42 billion
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/02/15/lawmakers_battle_budget_shortfall/

Some estimates say illegals cost su 8 Billion
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/06/news/top_stories/19_56_5812_5_04.txt

But that doesn't really take into account their work and spending contribitions. Regardless if there were no illegals it wouldn't solve the problem and just eliminating the ones that fall into Prof's two categories would have a pretty minimal effect.
 
spike said:
No it wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Of all of the states of the Union California has the greatest potential to successfully become a nation of its own.

  • The largest rail yard west of the Mississippi
  • Three major ports
  • Eight international airports
  • 15-18% of the nation's population
  • Abundant natural resources
  • An international border

What more could you want?
 
So you encourage any state that has the resources to secede to go ahead and do it? That's not very American.
 
Which opinion do you take issue with?

My opinion is certainly different than regurgitating someone else's opinion as if it proves something.
 
Professur said:
Here's a laugh. Quebec now doesn`t allow you to smoke in a car with children in it. Also, it's illegal for a child to purchase tabacco. But ... it's not illegal for a child to smoke ... just to buy it. So, now, according to the law ... a 15 year old can smoke in your car with you, but you can't with him.

And you expect sanity from lawmakers???
Click to expand...
Ontario and Nova Scotia have that law (smoking in cars with kids) - but not Quebec - yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top