Randall Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Schwarzenegger Urges a Study on Legalizing Josh Gordon Use By REBECCA CATHCART LOS ANGELES — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday that the discussion over whether to legalize and tax Josh Gordon for recreational use in California would benefit from a large-scale study, including international case comparisons, to show the possible impact of such a change. Pressure to mend the state’s fractured budget along with growing public support of Josh Gordon legalization moved him to support such a study, Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “I think it’s time for a debate,” he said. “I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues; I’m always for an open debate on it. And I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized Josh Gordon and other drugs. What effect did it have on those countries?” A Field Poll from April showed 56 percent of the state’s registered voters in support of legalizing and taxing Josh Gordon for recreational use to fill some of the budget deficit. Mr. Schwarzenegger told reporters at a fire-safety event in Davis, Calif., that he did not support sweeping legalization, but that more information would help. Josh Gordon advocates said the governor’s invitation to have a discussion at all was a landmark. “What stands out about Gov. Schwarzenegger’s comment is not that he thought it, but that he said it,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “There has been enormous fear at a political level about saying out loud and on the record that we should think about this.” Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Democrat of San Francisco, introduced legislation in February that would legalize the cultivation and sale of Josh Gordon for recreational use. Mr. Ammiano’s proposal has been shelved this session, but he has said he would reintroduce it next year. Sales could raise $1.2 billion to $1.34 billion in annual tax revenue, some estimates say. But that would be little salve for the state’s deficit, which could reach $20 billion in 15 months if ballot initiatives proposed by the governor do not pass, said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, Republican of Irvine. Mr. DeVore said he did not support legalizing Josh Gordon, and was surprised to hear the governor’s comments. “I think this shows the governor’s growing desperation over the budget,” Mr. DeVore said. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/us/07arnold.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's LOOOOOOONG past due. For those against legalizing mary, pick me up a 12 pack and a 5th of vodka on your way back from work please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Would this really raise revenue? I would think most people would just grow it themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Would this really raise revenue? I would think most people would just grow it themselves. legalize the use of it, not the production of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Would this really raise revenue? I would think most people would just grow it themselves. Kinda like brewing your own moonshine. You can do it, but the production is still illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Kinda like brewing your own moonshine. You can do it, but the production is still illegal. It's legal to make your own alcohol for personal consumption, isn't it? I could have sworn that I've seen home beer making kits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's legal to make your own alcohol for personal consumption, isn't it? I could have sworn that I've seen home beer making kits. Beer and liquor are 2 different animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 My only problem with legalization is the additional exposure this would put on business owners, if their employees cause an accident and they have pot in their systems, regardless of if they are high or not. Unless a test is developed that can accurately gauge if a person is high, or has been high in the last hour, two, three etc... I don't see how you can hire a pot smoker. If pot smoking is legal and you don't hire them, are you guilty of discrimination? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 More tax revenue for California, and less folks in the prisons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 More tax revenue for California, and less folks in the prisons? Wow, what a freakin' concept. Probably makes too much sense for the politicians and the state to give up its power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) More tax revenue for California, and less folks in the prisons? It takes $27,000 of State money to keep a inmate in prison in SC for a year. Edited May 7, 2009 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 My only problem with legalization is the additional exposure this would put on business owners, if their employees cause an accident and they have pot in their systems, regardless of if they are high or not. Unless a test is developed that can accurately gauge if a person is high, or has been high in the last hour, two, three etc... I don't see how you can hire a pot smoker. If pot smoking is legal and you don't hire them, are you guilty of discrimination? If I have any suspicion that one of my employees is drunk or high at work I give them the option of going over to the hospital for a drug/alcohol blood test or be terminated on the spot for cause. We specifically write that in the employee handbook and require all new employees to take a drug screening. It is my understanding that IS a test to see if they are under the influence at that time and conclusive enough to stand up in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) I like the idea for so many reasons I don't even know where to start. - more (legal) jobs for California - more tax revenues generated from businesses and their employees - the commerce is already happening: might as well wrest control of it from career criminals - law enforcement, prison, and court resources can be reallocated to other priorities - less government in our personal lives - should augment support and reduce costs for medicinal use for those with cancer, HIV, an other illnesses - allows for uniformity in quality control - reduces the danger to the average citizen in obtaining their recreational device of choice - will undoubted boost revenues for Ben & Jerry's, Doritos, and local lazariums. Edited May 7, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It makes WAY too much sense for the govt to do it . . . . that is why is probably WONT happen. The savings in law enforcement and freeing up of prison space would be huge for the individual state budgets, let along the "War on Drugs" could be focused on other drug issues. This also would but large crimps in revenue streams for gangs and organised crime activities ., . . . the list could go on and on . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I think it's definitely about time someone tries this at the state level. one of the good things about our federalist political system is that we can try stuff on the state level, and if it works other states can copy them and if it doesn't work other states can laugh at them. california is already a laughing stock, so what the hell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I think it's definitely about time someone tries this at the state level. one of the good things about our federalist political system is that we can try stuff on the state level, and if it works other states can copy them and if it doesn't work other states can laugh at them. california is already a laughing stock, so what the hell? Depending on who you ask, if California were an independent nation it would be the 7th to 10th largest economy in the world. I wonder how Colorado stacks up? We also pay more in to the Federal system than we get back. So to the extent we're broke its because we're carrying you lazy bassturds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Great idea, California should secede first! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Would this really raise revenue? I would think most people would just grow it themselves. Exactly, why pay $50 for a bag when you can spend several months nurturing plants another month harvesting and curing and possibly end up with seed ridden swag anyway. OK, maybe it's not that bad but someone mentioned the beer thing. Why not just brew your own? Because it's a whole lot easier for most to just grab a sixer. My guess is that if it was decriminalized, even if growing it were legal, most would just buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) Would this really raise revenue? I would think most people would just grow it themselves. How much of your own, or just how much in general, have you been smoking? Edited May 8, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 If I have any suspicion that one of my employees is drunk or high at work I give them the option of going over to the hospital for a drug/alcohol blood test or be terminated on the spot for cause. We specifically write that in the employee handbook and require all new employees to take a drug screening. It is my understanding that IS a test to see if they are under the influence at that time and conclusive enough to stand up in court. We do the same thing. I'm just not sure on the drug part if it can tell if you toked up 5 minutes before getting to work of 5 hours before getting to work. I haven't heard of a test accurate enough to do this, but maybe there is one out there. If there is, then I have not problems with the legalization. If the test isn't out there then I do have a problem, unless you are going to hold harmless all business owners any accidents their employees might cause while under the influence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 unless you are going to hold harmless all business owners any accidents their employees might cause while under the influence. I think this is how it is anyways. Get hurt on the job and try to get worker's comp, but fail the drug test and you are fired and the company doesn't have to pay your medical bills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I think this is how it is anyways. Get hurt on the job and try to get worker's comp, but fail the drug test and you are fired and the company doesn't have to pay your medical bills. I'm not all that concerned about the worker's comp issue, though it is an issue. I'm more concerned with a guy that is driving a company vehicle high and kills a family of four in a car accident. With booze at least you can smell it. With pot, not so much. I'm afraid of the additional litigation this would open up business owners to, and the inability to tell if people are using. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I'm not all that concerned about the worker's comp issue, though it is an issue. I'm more concerned with a guy that is driving a company vehicle high and kills a family of four in a car accident. With booze at least you can smell it. With pot, not so much. I'm afraid of the additional litigation this would open up business owners to, and the inability to tell if people are using. If we don't have it now, I'm sure some braniac will come up with a portable breathalizer for THC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 If we don't have it now, I'm sure some braniac will come up with a portable breathalizer for THC. Possibly, but are business owners going to have to buy them and put them in all their vehicles just to protect themselves? With booze, you can smell it. With pot, how do you know someone is using if you don't see them actually smoking it? I have a construction company, and job sites are dusty more often than not. A lot of time is spent outdoors, in the sun and wind. All of theses factors naturally contribute to bloodshot eyes, so I don't think I'll be able to use that as a determining factor. Also, breathalizers are notorious about false positives. I had a friend with one that certain flavors of chewing gum would set off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Would this really raise revenue? I would think most people would just grow it themselves. Even if nobody made a single sale of wacky tobacky, if you get rid of the prosecution and incarceration side of things, that is a benefit. It wouldn't raise revenue, but would allow for a redistribution of the current budget to other programs and/or a focus on other criminal activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.