Posted on 05/05/2009 2:27:27 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday it's time for California to study whether to legalize and tax marijuana for recreational use, though he's not yet advocating for such a change.
The governor was asked about a recent Field Poll showing that 56 percent of registered voters support legalizing and taxing marijuana to raise revenues for cash-strapped California. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has proposed legislation that would legalize the drug for recreational use, rather than just medical purposes.
"Well, I think it's not time for that, but I think it's time for a debate," Schwarzenegger 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 marijuana and other drugs, what effect did it have on those countries?"
He said his native Austria is revisiting some of its marijuana laws, for instance. The Austrian Parliament last year authorized medical marijuana.
"It could very well be that everyone is happy with that decision and then we could move to that," Schwarzenegger said of other nations' legalization policies. "If not, we shouldn't do it. But just because of raising revenues ... we have to be careful not to make mistakes at the same time.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
For those so inclined, it is very difficult to make their own gin or grow their own tobacco.
Marijuana is like dandylion. The tax revenue will be controlled by competition - tax it too much and everyone just grows their own. The law enforcement dollar savings is more real though - and a sof benefit is that the less law enforcement comes into contact with the public, the better our culture is, all around. Frankly, that is infinitely better than the money part.
>>Drinking alcohol is stupid but it is legal anyway.<<
Actually, like marijuana, alcohol has health benefits. But it takes only an ounce a day.
Getting DRUNK is stupid though.
IOW, it would be like alcohol - post prohibition.
It is clearly a 10th amendment issue. The federal law is unconstitutional. If there is no interstate transport involved, it is, constitutionally speaking, none of there business.
We call this country THE United States. It’s time to go back to the oldv vernacular: THESE United States.
I’m suspecting that driving while stoned would still be illegal. ;)
You don’t even know what that means, do you?
And Freepers who insist on foisting their own moral codes upon their fellow citizens while simultaneously whining about the nanny state's infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms (or a number of other personal freedoms) are...well, hypocrites.
If the nanny state decides that drugs are bad for you, it can also decide that guns are bad for you too. In fact, it can make a virtually unlimited number of decisions for you. That's why it's called a "nanny state."
Doing anything in excess is stupid.
I had no idea that there were still people who believed in the contact high nonsense.
(I am Legend) in your own mind.
Where does the Constitution grant government ANY authority to tell anyone what someone may or may not put into his or her own body? Please point it out to me. I’ve asked over and over and no one has yet been able to show me the article, section and paragraph that specifically says government may regulate or ban substances its lying weasels say are harmful because they cause white women to want sex with Mexicans, Chinese or Black Jazz musicians or, when smoked, cause the users to turn into bats and fly around the room. Can YOU be the one to show me?
I cannot figure any possible way that the United States' FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has the constitutional authority to criminalize (at the core) the act of someone planting a seed and smoking the plant.
American conservatives only need refer to our constitution for guidance on this.
...as for specially TAXING it. We are (or should be) AGAINST that. Although, objectively, I can't see getting that double dose of freedom restored at the same time. Restoring legitimate and reasonable taxation overall will be an ongoing quest.
Don't forget Washington mounting up to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
He wasn’t giving you a FACT based argument, but his OPINION, for which facts may form a base, but are not needed to state it as his OPINION. He doesn’t even have to tell you WHICH facts figure in or how. Just as you provided no facts in your “argument.” So it’s a wash.
What are "breathing rights"?
you must be a huge liquer drinker
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.