Schwarzeneggar v. EMA - Nov. 2nd Supreme Court Transcript

[Neverslip]

Re: Schwarzeneggar v. EMA - Nov. 2nd Supreme Court Transcript

doesn't contain the thousands of toxins or the highly addictive nicotine that smokes do.

Unless of course (when it finally gets legalized) the pot you buy legally is produced by corporations.

Still my take is: legalize, vaporize, and tax the crap outta it.

[Ufgt]

Re: Schwarzeneggar v. EMA - Nov. 2nd Supreme Court Transcript

Honestly, the government is missing out on a massive revenue stream, and california needs the money baaaaaad.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Schwarzeneggar v. EMA - Nov. 2nd Supreme Court Transcript

On the flip side, would it really hurt the kids to play fewer video games with questionable degree of violence or nudity or whatnot?

I don't think that's really the issue at all.

[Taskmage]

Re: Schwarzeneggar v. EMA - Nov. 2nd Supreme Court Transcript

I still say prop 19 failing is a real blunder, but what can you do about it? The older, more fearful crowd won.

It's not as simple as that. The battle lines on Prop 19 meandered far more than you'd expect. Marijuana users and growers were actually lined up in opposition to the bill because the heavy restrictions would have put small growers out of business. On the other side you have a retired police chief leading an activist group in favor of the bill for the reasons Murphie stated.

Legalized Pot's Unlikely Supporters: Moms And Cops : NPR

All in all I'd say the failure to pass the measure was a wash, but the fact that it came up to serious national debate is a major victory. Prohibition is going to end eventually at this rate, it's just a matter of when and on what terms.

[Neverslip]

Re: Schwarzeneggar v. EMA - Nov. 2nd Supreme Court Transcript

Marijuana users and growers were actually lined up in opposition to the bill because the heavy restrictions would have put small growers out of business.

Users I really don't get but growers I do. Of course the people who currently make money off of the illegal production of it now would be in opposition.

~~~~~(edit)~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's 4:20!!!!

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: Schwarzeneggar v. EMA - Nov. 2nd Supreme Court Transcript

Yeah, I'm actually not understanding the issue there. What "lawsuits" will be brought up?

The biggest one I can think of would be how it clashes with the Federal Controlled Substance Act.

Generally speaking, the California government (through its state Attorney General) has the obligation to defend the laws of California, which in this case (probably) would have violated the Federal Law. And, we were already warned by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Which means, unless California wishes to secede from the Union, passing of Prop. 19 probably would've landed us in the Federal Court.

Considering the vast amount of money the state would gain via taxes, and save by not having to prosecute growers and users, I'd think that it would be of considerable benefit to the state of California.

That sounds easy, but the reality isn't that simple. I don't think there's a "vast amount of money" at all, and whatever amount it is, comes with many strings attached.

First of all, while Prop. 19 would have granted government the authority to tax marijuana, the Proposition itself doesn't actually specify any particular tax for it. (Though, it is possible that such sales would be covered under existing sales tax.) That's my understanding, anyway.

However, any new tax law will have to go through our dysfunctional, perceptually grid-locked ultra-partisan'ed kindergarten disguised as a legislature with its asinine 2/3rd super majority vote needed for any new tax law.

Yeah. Easy money. Not.


Second, there is a well established underground economy for distributing and selling marijuana; what exactly would be the incentive for that group to pay taxes? In an era of legalized pot, it'd be easier to sell the stuff than ever. If anything, they present a formidable competition to anyone would try to start legal marijuana business, since they can undercut by avoiding taxes. Higher the tax, by the way, the more incentives for them to skirt the taxes.

Wouldn't surprise me had Prop. 19 passed, the majority of buyers still wouldn't be paying taxes for the first few years.


The third point isn't likely to go well with this crowd, but I'd be remiss to not say mention it: marijuana isn't harm free. At the very least, it impairs driving.

And, let's think about what exactly is the 'smoke' involved; it's burnt plant matter. Blew any smoke into face of an infant, and the infant is likely to cough and cry. Why? Human beings are not supposed to be inhaling bunrt plant matter. Preserving meats aside, we're supposed to avoid smoke when it comes to the air we breathe.

Call me strange, but I find any smoke which make people WANT to inhale extremely suspicious.


Fourth, let's directly address the idea of marijuana bringing in additional tax revenue.

Well, if the money they spend on legal marijuana comes from what they used to spend on illegal marijuana, that definitely would be more revenue. As mentioned earlier, though, there's not a whole lot of economic incentive for the existing suppliers to pay taxes, and in fact there's incentive to do the opposite.

If the money to marijuana comes from what people spent on other forms of entertainment--which are already taxed--then there wouldn't be any net gain in revenue, would there? Actually, if they go from taxed entertainment to some underground dope seller, it'd be a net loss.


Fifth (is there anyone still reading?!), the 'savings'. There may be some savings in not arresting and jailing marijuana sellers, but I don't see a lot money being returned to the general fund as a likely course. It's not a large saving, either; even without sending the marijuana sellers to jail, we would still have to pay for the infrastructure like the police and prisons.

Should there somehow be a substantial amount of money returned to the general fund, it'd be eaten by the new bureaucracy needed to handle marijuana sales in the legal era--not least of which is hiring of people to enforce the tax on marijuana.


Sixth, I don't see the marijuana as a particularly big jobs creation engine; per capita demand is low compared to how few people is needed to produce sufficient supplies, and it's not like we can grow a surplus and ship to other states for sales, either.


Overall, legalizing marijuana is unlikely to bring in huge amount of additional tax revenue, and definitely not any time soon with the inherent legal problem it has with the Federal law. It would've been just another mess, really, that drags on for years and years.

There are some messy things I am willing to entertain and entangle our state government in, such as the attempt to build the so called "green industry/economy". That, has a good potential for bringing long-term good to California, USA, and the world.

Helping people get marijuana more easily? I just don't see the good in it, especially not for the trouble we'd have to go through. It's just not worthwhile.

* * *

Oh if only that sort of thing could be done in damned Senate... or does no one realize how asinine it is to require 60+ votes to move on anything?

Only when there's a filibuster; the 60+ threshold is used for vote to tell a Senator to shut up and quit yapping so they can vote on the law itself--that part takes only a simple majority to pass anything.


* * *

Don't like tobacco smoke, either, but marijuana does stink more.

I'd advocate outlawing tabacco (and I did in the past), but now I've no stomach for more protracted and heated legal and legislative battles. Willing to to settle for incremental progress in limiting where the stuff can be smoked.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Schwarzeneggar v. EMA - Nov. 2nd Supreme Court Transcript

Uhhh... what? That doesn't even make any sense.

What's not to understand? Its basic child psychology.

Kids want what teenagers and adults enjoy because they want to feel grown-up, too. Or they want the things that parents don't want them to have and society tells them isn't good for them. Society tells them sex and violence are bad, so they only want to see more of it.

Which is why people try to make laws like the California law being appealed now.

When Joe Lieberman came along and made the game industry form a ratings board, it was in response to games like Mortal Kombat, but drawing that line with ratings has time and again raised the stakes with violence and sex in media.

When "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe" came to theaters with all this drinking, smoking, swearing and othervulgarities, the MPAA was born and movies only got more racy because now they had a special rating to sensationalize such material with. An "R" was born.

George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words? Its why "Prime Time" TV exists. Its why the most outrageous stuff tends to be on after you put the kids to bed. Some kids heard Carlin on the radio spouting off such language (shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits) and parents bitched at the radio and the stations as well to the FCC. Its why the FCC fines swearing and wardrobe malfunctions now.

Parental Advisory labels are the rap community's seal of approval. 2 Live Crew made them happen. Now no one will buy the CD or MP3 unless it keeps the obscenity.

When TV ratings were implemented, the stakes were raised once again. It opened the door for NYPD Blue and The Sopranos and South Park

So when we had that bright idea to come up with the ESRB, games like Grand Theft Auto, Postal, Resident Evil and more were inevitable. No one really had the right to act surprised.

I mean, seriously, I just paraphrased the first four chapters of a Mass Communications 101 textbook here. Its the first thing Journalism and Broadcasting students are taught about. Chapter 1 for my Mass Media and Society course literally was the transcript of George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words. Piss, shit, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits. It leaves a hell of an impression, that's for sure.

The crazy need to "protect the children" from violent media is exactly what made this kind of media magnetic to kids. By denying them it, we make them want it, we make them crave it. Because they want to rebel, they want to feel grown up even though the little body in the mirror reminds them they're kids and teenagers.

And the more we try to censor, rate or regulate - the more outrageous it all gets. Even with adults, when you draw that line there are people that will use the edge of that line to its fullest, til they practically dance on it like a pro. Rockstar Games lives there, dancing right on the far side of the line. Ratings didn't create limits, they created the desire to push the limits even further.

TL;DR: Its Joe's fault. All he succeeded in doing was proving Einstein right - Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: Schwarzeneggar v. EMA - Nov. 2nd Supreme Court Transcript

Bsides the smell, ...

Omg...I LOVE the smell of growing weed and burning weed! I tried to find incense that smelled like it and I did find some but it wasn't that great. It was great enough to nearly get me arrested though! Had to call cops to make a report of dmg to my car, he came out and became suspicious when he smelled my incense. He asked to come in to the house and I said ok. He saw the kids and then said that he suspected drug use and felt the kids were in danger so I quickly had to show him my incense. It took him a bit but he gave in and then said "I was wondering if you were smoking skunk weed because that shit stinks!" I threw that crap out asap!

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: Schwarzeneggar v. EMA - Nov. 2nd Supreme Court Transcript

You serious like that smell? Yeek.

The stuff literally made me gagged a few times a few times in the past.

[Murphie]

Re: Schwarzeneggar v. EMA - Nov. 2nd Supreme Court Transcript

It doesn't bother me one way or the other. It CAN be a somewhat pleasant, if a bit sweet, odor. I grew up around that smell (probably the reason I don't smoke it), and I honestly have no problem with it.

Also, I imagine blowing smoke of any kind into an infant's face wouldn't go down well with said infant. Sure, yes, smoking burned plant matter or other substances may seem odd, but humans have been doing it for centuries. It's not that unusual a concept. Plus, with cigarette smoking, we have the whole addiction issue.

Cigars are an interesting area there. You don't actually inhale cigars. You just roll the smoke around in your mouth (similar to pipe smoke, I believe?) I've tried them a few times, and while they aren't exactly my thing (I think being a smoker it's hard to adjust to not inhaling), the smell CAN be somewhat enjoyable. Then again, I hate smelling like smoke of any kind, so the aftereffects are a bitch.