Posted on 03/25/2017 9:14:16 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Proponents and opponents of legalizing pot in Illinois are firing up their talking points after a proposal to legalize the sale of weed for recreational purposes sprouted up this week.
Opponents of legalizing, regulating and taxing pot say they don’t care how much revenue it could generate for Illinois’ failed finances.
Amendments to bills in the House and Senate this week would allow for the sale of recreational marijuana with a $50 tax per ounce. That would be on top of any sales tax. Supporters says it could generate hundreds of millions of dollars a year for the state.
Democratic state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, sponsor of the House measure, said it’s a win, win, win.
“For me it’s common sense …," Cassidy said. "We can create jobs. We can bring in revenue. We can make our communities safer. All with taking this thoughtful vote.”
There are critics, however. Anita Bedell, executive director of Illinois Church Action on Alcohol & Addiction Problems, said, “Just because something brings in revenue doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. They’re not considering the harm, they’re not considering costs.”
Proponents also say it will spur on jobs. Bedell said, “So has gambling, so has other things … there’s always going to be money in some things, but this is not a good way to have money for Illinois, and it would just cause more harm and cause more damage.”
Both sides also addressed whether legalization would affect black market sales.
Former Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Inge Fryklund supports legalization and said anytime something people want is illegal, mayhem is sure to ensue.
“Whenever there's a product which is illegal, but people want it, it’s going to be supplied by the criminal market," Fryklund said. "And the criminals are going to be making all the decisions, keeping all the revenues, and because this is a business, there are going to be business disputes and because they can’t sue each other in the circuit court of Cook County, they go out and kill each other.”
Because black market business disputes are settled with street violence, legalization would mean disputes could be handled in courts, Fryklund added.
Illinois Family Institute’s David Smith opposes legalization and said there would still be a black market.
“The guy on the street that’s selling the pot doesn't have to have the brick and mortar and the overhead and the employees and the insurance, and the workman’s comp,” Smith said.
Smith also dismissed proponents who say illegal marijuana is a criminal justice issue because, he said, there are a very small number of inmates in the system for drug possession only.
The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police said they oppose the bill because of the traffic safety concerns.
The bill will likely change before any votes are cast. However, legalization advocate Dan Linn said they won’t compromise on allowing adults to grow up to five plants at home.
Gov. Bruce Rauner’s office said the proposed legislation is under review.
IL needs money.. 50 an ounce tax is not going to stop the black market.
For your Interest.
People will just buy from the dealers and escape paying the $50, the sales tax and still have a "legal" product,should they pass this insanity.
Soros has his hooks everywhere.
Why not legalize prostitution too with a $50 tax? /s
It is rather astounding how the truly wicked are so apparently oblivious to the fact of their own mortality. As if the drive to perpetuate evil will in turn perpetuate their life span.
The state of Illinois has already gone to pot. It has been on a steady decline for many years.
Illinois is so deep in debt because of pensions it can’t pay out it is desperate to try anything so I wouldn’t be surprised if this passes through. Will obviously affect Missouri and surrounding states as well.
Soros, schmoros...
<begin rant>
Who is it that has their "hooks" into supporting an American system that seeks to put an individual in prison simply for possessing the wrong plant!? Something God made?
Prohibitionism—with its nanny state mentality—and the ever-expanding police state required to enforce its authoritarian edicts—and its de facto rejection of minimal government and privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment—and its tacit embrace of no-knock warrants and asset forfeiture—is magnitudes more dangerous than anything George Soros could ever muster.
No thanks. I'll take actual Freedom, with all of its inconvenient challenges.
Education and compassion are the only things that can legitimately and Constitutionally address problems such as substance abuse—not arbitrary law and incarceration of non-criminals.
The Prohibitionist Mind can perform incredible somersaults in its quest to rationalize Tyranny.
The only thing worse than Legalization is Prohibition...
</end rant>
WE NEED POT in Illinois because the Politicians are driving us BAT-SHIT -CRAZY and we need some stress relief!!
So, Illinois has a lottery that was supposed to leave schools flush with cash. Casinos were sold as a way to fund cities that had lost their industrial base. There is a high sales tax as well as high taxes on gasoline and tobacco. All of that and the state is in a deep dark hole of debt and cannot pay its bills and other obligations. Of course, we all know the cause of the problem, and that’s why I am skeptical that legal, taxed weed is going to turn it all around.
LOL!
My sentiments, exactly.
We are looking to move to the DFW area to get away from it all. It’s sad, because so many conservatives make up the downstate area.
The sponsor of the Illinois marijuana legalization bill is State Representative Kelly Cassidy is a lesbian mother of three who identifies herself as a Jewish progressive. She has also spoken about the importance of her undergoing an abortion in order to protect her reproductive system for another day.
Celebrating diversity and multiculturalism is what the modern Democratic Party is all about!
You can look it up.
There was a period of time, prior to the ridiculous late '60s, when dope was not something that most people ever wanted to do. Heroin addicts were looked down on, scorned, and shunned. Now there is an epidemic that goes across many unusual states and places.
Children, and that's what middle schoolers are ( at least they used to be ), were innocents, who not only didn't know much about sexual activities, they sure weren't engaging in them! That's also no longer the norm, in many places. And I'm NOT talking about 100 years ago...the moral degeneracy didn't truly take hold, in this nation, until several decades ago!
GOD made lots of different plants...many of them pure poison, in one way or another!
Do you want ALL illicit substances made "legal" ?
‘said there would still be a black market.
‘“The guy on the street that’s selling the pot doesn’t have to have the brick and mortar and the overhead and the employees and the insurance, and the workman’s comp,” Smith said.’
Right - just like the thriving black market in alcohol.
“The only thing worse than Legalization is Prohibition.”
Amen!
Keeping ‘em dumb and stupid. The Soviets used vodka but pot works too.
Pretty much. I've seen the alternative, and it has produced nothing but failure and tyranny.
No person deserves to be put in prison for possessing or using the wrong plant, medicine, chemical, or liquid spirits.
If anyone commits an actual crime in the pursuance of such habits, or as a result of impaired driving, or whatever, I'm very much of a law and order mentality—nail them to the wall—but absent that, I can find no justification for arbitrary law.
You see, when conservatives compromise on such principles, they create a situation which allows liberals to do the same thing. Following such logic, any majority or powerful minority can then justify their Tyranny based on their self-righteous concepts of "order".
I'd rather have a situation where no portion of the political spectrum can use such "expediency" to justify authoritarianism. I believe it to be un-American, and, as I have mentioned, a slippery slope towards totalitarianism.
Conversely, when the legal system consists only of legitimate authority—punishing those who infringe on the rights of others, those who are reckless, and so on—then it demands respect from all who live under it, no matter their political persuasion.
Any law which exceeds the constraints of legitimate authority simply cannot be condoned, because it creates a situation whereby the Enemy can rationalize their Tyranny based on the same reasoning which Prohibitionists, for example, rationalize their own.
With such consistency, the likelihood of majority Tyranny is greatly reduced, and having a few more abusers (drinkers, smokers, or whatever) around, or even having more drug overdoses, is a small price to pay.
There's just no way that any government has the right to throw a human being in prison merely for possessing state-declared contraband, except under extremely compelling circumstances.
People are the masters of their own bodies, and in a free society, that includes the right to put things into their bodies that aren't good for them. Again, if in that context they infringe on the rights of another due to force, fraud, or negligence, I say "nail them to the wall", but, barring that, I say "leave them alone" and let family, friends, and private institutions take care of those situations.
I hope that clarifies things, and obviously this is a debate which has been hashed and rehashed over and over in this forum and others. I therefore doubt that either of us will change the others mind, so I'll just leave it at that.
Good to see you engaging lately; I know you're a passionate advocate for this Revolution we're all in the midst of.
Just out of curiosity, where did you come down on this recent health care bill? I was quite torn, but, given Paul Ryan's massive Establishment credentials, I've concluded he wants to sabotage President Trump, and that he can't be trusted, and that therefore his "Obamacare lite" bill failing was the best outcome.
I feel like the legislation wouldn't have lowered premiums, and therefore it would have been dubbed "Trump-care" and be hung on the President, virtually guaranteeing his status as a one-term President. I think we can certainly agree that Paul Ryan is no friend of the president. Ryan is the epitome of a GOPe elitist.
The President, and a new bill with new authors, will eventually pass a better piece of legislation, one which offers the competition and free-market features that Trump voters are expecting, and which the President ran on.
Furthermore, a positive side effect is that—while it hurts the President in the short term—it greatly weakens the Speaker both now and moving forward, and indeed might (should) ultimately result in him being deposed.
Have a nice day, np ;-)
The land of Lincoln goes to pot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.