I think they still sell this at Walgreens Hav. Maybe not. Now go get a script but better wear a mask so no one recognizes ya. hehehe
Marijuana issues
- Thread starter havasu
- Start date
Help Support Flooring Forum:
I think they still sell this at Walgreens Hav. Maybe not. Now go get a script but better wear a mask so no one recognizes ya. hehehe
Did you know that cocaine only became illegal because the southern people were convinced that it made black people go crazy and kill and rape white women? (got that out of my Substance abuse intervention class)
![MORE Luxury Vinyl Floor Cleaner for Vinyl Plank Flooring - Ready to Use, Daily Cleaning Formula for Tile, Vinyl Surfaces [Gallon / 128oz]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/413LZHZiqCL._SL500_.jpg)
Your right it is a herbicide. Most if not all pot grown for legal sales is grown inside. Couldn't be any worse than all the crap monsanto sells farmers which your injesting right now. lol
Snip: Paraquat (dipyridylium) is a highly toxic weed killer (herbicide). In the past, the United States encouraged Mexico to use it to destroy marijuana plants. Later, research showed this herbicide was dangerous to workers who applied it to the plants.
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001085.htm
Last edited:
Hey guys, it's Ed Alabama, fire one up for me!
Since that's obviously not true, they probably ought to legalize it again, right?
It was in a lot of meds before that and prescribed by doctors too. And of course it was in Cocacola.
Since that's obviously not true, they probably ought to legalize it again, right?
With a prescription of course!
I mentioned this before, but I dropped out of flooring for twenty years after my daughter got very sick (she has since passed) and I picked up a nursing license. I have done every kind of nursing, primarily intensive or interventional work in cardiology, but five years as a private duty for one individual, and five years of back office auditing work.
Mammals have built in receptors for the active ingredient in pot.
Do you realize how rare that is ?
Conversely, 90% of the psychotropic drugs have an "unknown mechanism" most are garnered as the by product of some other kind of manufacturing process.. They have no verifiable blood test for most of these drugs that doctors readily prescribe..they have no measuring device to determine efficacy of a certain blood level.
The same sort of activity in the real world would be like a butcher having a vendor show up with a box of unmarked red stuff and grinding it up in the hamburger without trying any himself.
I've never treated anyone that had adverse medical conditions from marijuana other than smoking issues, and smoking is legal in all fifty states for now. Big pharma is responsible for millions of deaths every year, and they are the primary lobbying opponent of decriminalized pot.
That alone should make logical people wonder why ?
Mammals have built in receptors for the active ingredient in pot.
Do you realize how rare that is ?
Conversely, 90% of the psychotropic drugs have an "unknown mechanism" most are garnered as the by product of some other kind of manufacturing process.. They have no verifiable blood test for most of these drugs that doctors readily prescribe..they have no measuring device to determine efficacy of a certain blood level.
The same sort of activity in the real world would be like a butcher having a vendor show up with a box of unmarked red stuff and grinding it up in the hamburger without trying any himself.
I've never treated anyone that had adverse medical conditions from marijuana other than smoking issues, and smoking is legal in all fifty states for now. Big pharma is responsible for millions of deaths every year, and they are the primary lobbying opponent of decriminalized pot.
That alone should make logical people wonder why ?
So are you saying the FDA is owned by big pharmacies?
Looking for Treatment
The FDA understands that caregivers and patients are looking for treatment options for unmet medical needs. In some instances, patients or their caregivers are turning to marijuana in an attempt to treat conditions such as seizures and chemotherapy-induced nausea.
Untested Drugs can have Unknown Consequences
Over the last few decades, there has been significant interest in the potential utility of marijuana for a variety of medical conditions, including those that already have FDA-approved therapies.
More recently, several states have also passed laws that remove state restrictions on health care professionals using marijuana as a medical treatment for a variety of conditions. A number of other states are considering similar legislation regarding the use of marijuana in medical settings.
FDA’s Role in the Drug Approval Process
The FDA has not approved marijuana as a safe and effective drug for any indication. The agency has, however, approved two drugs containing a synthetic version of a substance that is present in the marijuana plant and one other drug containing a synthetic substance that acts similarly to compounds from marijuana but is not present in marijuana. Although the FDA has not approved any drug product containing or derived from botanical marijuana, the FDA is aware that there is considerable interest in its use to attempt to treat a number of medical conditions, including, for example, glaucoma, AIDS wasting syndrome, neuropathic pain, cancer, multiple sclerosis, chemotherapy-induced nausea, and certain seizure disorders.
Before conducting testing in humans of a drug that has not been approved by the FDA, an investigator submits an investigational new drug (IND) application, which is reviewed by the FDA. An IND includes protocols describing proposed studies, the qualifications of the investigators who will conduct the clinical studies, and assurances of informed consent and protection of the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subjects. The FDA reviews the IND to ensure that the proposed studies, generally referred to as clinical trials, do not place human subjects at unreasonable risk of harm. The FDA also verifies that there are adequate assurances of informed consent and human subject protection.
The FDA’s role in the regulation of drugs, including marijuana and marijuana-derived products, also includes review of applications to market drugs to determine whether proposed drug products are safe and effective for their intended indications. The FDA’s drug approval process requires that clinical trials be designed and conducted in a way that provide the agency with the necessary scientific data upon which the FDA can make its approval decisions. Without this review, the FDA cannot determine whether a drug product is safe and effective. It also cannot ensure that a drug product meets appropriate quality standards. For certain drugs that have not been approved by the FDA, such as marijuana, the lack of FDA approval and oversight means that the purity and potency of the drug may vary considerably.
As with other drugs that are not approved by the FDA, the agency works closely with the medical and patient communities, and our federal partners when necessary, to allow access to experimental treatments through the expanded access provisions described in the FDA’s statute and regulations. The FDA’s expanded access provisions are designed to facilitate the availability of investigational products to patients with serious diseases or conditions when there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy available, either because the patients have exhausted treatment with or are intolerant of approved therapies, or when the patients are not eligible for an ongoing clinical trial.
FDA Supports Sound Scientific Research
The FDA also has an important role to play in supporting scientific research into the medical uses of marijuana and its constituents in scientifically valid investigations as part of the agency’s drug review and approval process. As a part of this role, the FDA supports those in the medical research community who intend to study marijuana.
The FDA also supports research into the medical use of marijuana and its constituents through cooperation with other federal agencies involved in marijuana research. Conducting clinical research using marijuana involves interactions with other federal agencies:
The FDA reviews the IND application and the research protocol submitted by the applicant.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reviews the registration application filed by the researcher.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) within the National Institutes of Health operates pursuant to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. NIDA has been designated the responsible agency to supply research-grade marijuana to researchers.
State Legislation on Marijuana
Several states have either passed laws that remove state restrictions on the medical use of marijuana and its derivatives or are considering doing so. The FDA supports researchers who conduct adequate and well-controlled clinical trials which may lead to the development of safe and effective marijuana products to treat medical conditions. We have talked to several states, including Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New York and Pennsylvania, who are considering support for medical research of marijuana and its derivatives to ensure that their plans meet federal requirements and scientific standards.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421163.htm
Looking for Treatment
The FDA understands that caregivers and patients are looking for treatment options for unmet medical needs. In some instances, patients or their caregivers are turning to marijuana in an attempt to treat conditions such as seizures and chemotherapy-induced nausea.
Untested Drugs can have Unknown Consequences
Over the last few decades, there has been significant interest in the potential utility of marijuana for a variety of medical conditions, including those that already have FDA-approved therapies.
More recently, several states have also passed laws that remove state restrictions on health care professionals using marijuana as a medical treatment for a variety of conditions. A number of other states are considering similar legislation regarding the use of marijuana in medical settings.
FDA’s Role in the Drug Approval Process
The FDA has not approved marijuana as a safe and effective drug for any indication. The agency has, however, approved two drugs containing a synthetic version of a substance that is present in the marijuana plant and one other drug containing a synthetic substance that acts similarly to compounds from marijuana but is not present in marijuana. Although the FDA has not approved any drug product containing or derived from botanical marijuana, the FDA is aware that there is considerable interest in its use to attempt to treat a number of medical conditions, including, for example, glaucoma, AIDS wasting syndrome, neuropathic pain, cancer, multiple sclerosis, chemotherapy-induced nausea, and certain seizure disorders.
Before conducting testing in humans of a drug that has not been approved by the FDA, an investigator submits an investigational new drug (IND) application, which is reviewed by the FDA. An IND includes protocols describing proposed studies, the qualifications of the investigators who will conduct the clinical studies, and assurances of informed consent and protection of the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subjects. The FDA reviews the IND to ensure that the proposed studies, generally referred to as clinical trials, do not place human subjects at unreasonable risk of harm. The FDA also verifies that there are adequate assurances of informed consent and human subject protection.
The FDA’s role in the regulation of drugs, including marijuana and marijuana-derived products, also includes review of applications to market drugs to determine whether proposed drug products are safe and effective for their intended indications. The FDA’s drug approval process requires that clinical trials be designed and conducted in a way that provide the agency with the necessary scientific data upon which the FDA can make its approval decisions. Without this review, the FDA cannot determine whether a drug product is safe and effective. It also cannot ensure that a drug product meets appropriate quality standards. For certain drugs that have not been approved by the FDA, such as marijuana, the lack of FDA approval and oversight means that the purity and potency of the drug may vary considerably.
As with other drugs that are not approved by the FDA, the agency works closely with the medical and patient communities, and our federal partners when necessary, to allow access to experimental treatments through the expanded access provisions described in the FDA’s statute and regulations. The FDA’s expanded access provisions are designed to facilitate the availability of investigational products to patients with serious diseases or conditions when there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy available, either because the patients have exhausted treatment with or are intolerant of approved therapies, or when the patients are not eligible for an ongoing clinical trial.
FDA Supports Sound Scientific Research
The FDA also has an important role to play in supporting scientific research into the medical uses of marijuana and its constituents in scientifically valid investigations as part of the agency’s drug review and approval process. As a part of this role, the FDA supports those in the medical research community who intend to study marijuana.
The FDA also supports research into the medical use of marijuana and its constituents through cooperation with other federal agencies involved in marijuana research. Conducting clinical research using marijuana involves interactions with other federal agencies:
The FDA reviews the IND application and the research protocol submitted by the applicant.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reviews the registration application filed by the researcher.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) within the National Institutes of Health operates pursuant to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. NIDA has been designated the responsible agency to supply research-grade marijuana to researchers.
State Legislation on Marijuana
Several states have either passed laws that remove state restrictions on the medical use of marijuana and its derivatives or are considering doing so. The FDA supports researchers who conduct adequate and well-controlled clinical trials which may lead to the development of safe and effective marijuana products to treat medical conditions. We have talked to several states, including Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New York and Pennsylvania, who are considering support for medical research of marijuana and its derivatives to ensure that their plans meet federal requirements and scientific standards.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421163.htm
Please keep in mind that I only posted the above for conversation purposes. I personally don't care one way or another, so please don't think I am defending a marijuana free world.
Reading in my college book, it says that in spite of what the government contends, tests show that pot is NOT stronger today than it was before.
Nick
In Remembrance
Unless it is laced with something .
I don't place much trust in the FDA, I have actually participated in trials for many meds, administering test drugs mixed with placebos etc.
I have been on the dirty end of medication administration and the good and bad effects..worked in an electrophysiologist lab as his assistant, a sub specialty of interventional cardiology , aside from the obvious euphoric effects, I think marijuana is probably one of the safest things humans can ingest, much safer than alcohol with less cell damage.
The FDA hasn't walked through its inception with clean hands. I won't post links but my opinion is yes, they can be bought so to speak.
I enjoyed parts of that field, got into for my daughter but it's become so pitifully near communist in structure, and so overloaded with red tape and nonsense it's hard to tell if people get real treatment or what ..they just don't appreciate dinosaurs like me..������
You do realize aspirin would probably never make it through trials in present day conditions ? I think the drugs laws are largely built around trying to legislate morality (how's that working ?) instead of noticing it's more than a moral issue.
I have been on the dirty end of medication administration and the good and bad effects..worked in an electrophysiologist lab as his assistant, a sub specialty of interventional cardiology , aside from the obvious euphoric effects, I think marijuana is probably one of the safest things humans can ingest, much safer than alcohol with less cell damage.
The FDA hasn't walked through its inception with clean hands. I won't post links but my opinion is yes, they can be bought so to speak.
I enjoyed parts of that field, got into for my daughter but it's become so pitifully near communist in structure, and so overloaded with red tape and nonsense it's hard to tell if people get real treatment or what ..they just don't appreciate dinosaurs like me..������
You do realize aspirin would probably never make it through trials in present day conditions ? I think the drugs laws are largely built around trying to legislate morality (how's that working ?) instead of noticing it's more than a moral issue.
Last edited:
Here is an article posted today from the local Tribune Take a look at the administrative costs and what California plans on doing with the money. Please look at the red print at the bottom and my own comments.
If you probe why the polls show a majority of California voters support a statewide effort to legalize recreational marijuana, increased tax revenue inevitably comes up.
UC Irvine student Giovanni Chavez, like many backers of legalized pot, says he’s primarily concerned about personal liberty and studies showing disproportionate prosecution of minorities for drug offenses.
But after watching state and local governments struggle through recurring budget crises, the aspiring political consultant said state-regulated marijuana sales would provide a new and needed stream of tax dollars.
“We could use the extra revenue,” said Chavez, 21. “And the fact that we would be able to interfere with the black market is huge.”
Supporters of legal recreational marijuana use point to Colorado, which legalized cannabis for adults in 2012. There, taxes and fees on weed are helping to build schools, repair roads and stabilize city budgets.
But critics of Proposition 64, California’s legalization initiative on the November ballot, point out tax revenue from legal weed would be dispersed much differently here.
Letitia Pepper, a Riverside attorney who uses medical marijuana to treat multiple sclerosis but is a vocal opponent of the measure, noted none of it would be dedicated to the general operations of local governments or schools.
Proponents acknowledge California’s measure includes key differences in how pot funds could be used. But they add that local governments and students still can benefit from the measure.
An estimated $1 billion in new tax revenue would be directed toward specific new or expanded programs such as drug use prevention and treatment, helping at-risk youth, law enforcement, environmental clean-up and research.
Jason Kinney, spokesman for the Yes on Prop. 64 campaign, said the restrictions on public use of the new tax monies was intentional. If public agencies were allowed to balance their general spending budgets with marijuana taxes, he said, it could create an incentive for them to encourage a bigger marijuana industry.
“The state of California shouldn’t be forced to rely on increased marijuana usage to address future K-12 education, infrastructure and other ongoing budget obligations,” he said.
Instead, Diane Goldstein of North Tustin – a retired police officer who’s campaigning for Prop. 64 – argued that tax revenue from the measure would be wisely used to offset some financial and social harms of the failed war on drugs via increased investment in education, research and treatment.
REVENUE PREDICTIONS
Right now, hundreds of pot businesses operating in California – some with local permits and many without – are paying state sales tax of close to 8 percent.
In 2015, the state took in $58 million in sales tax revenue from some 974 registered dispensaries, including nearly 400 in Los Angeles County and 70 to 80 each in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, according to Board of Equalization data.
That revenue is on track to nearly double this year.
Under Prop. 64, all marijuana sales would be taxed an additional 15 percent starting Jan. 1, 2018, on top of levies on regulated growers of $9.25 per ounce for dry flowers or $2.75 per ounce for leaves. Medical cannabis patients would be exempt from the state sales tax.
The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office predicts Prop. 64 state tax revenues would total from the high hundreds of millions of dollars to more than $1 billion each year.
That’s less than 1 percent of the state’s annual budget, or about what California brings in annually now from taxes on tobacco products.
Keith Humphreys, a Stanford University professor who served on a state commission that studied approaches for legalizing marijuana, summed up the financial impact of Prop. 64 this way: “It’s not going to make us if we do, and it’s not going to break us if we don’t.”
Tax revenue from legalized weed would first be used to cover “all reasonable costs” incurred by the state to administer and enforce the recreational cannabis regulations, according to the ballot measure.
The Department of Consumer Affairs, which would oversee the new marijuana marketplace if Prop. 64 passes, doesn’t have an estimate yet of those administrative costs, according to spokeswoman Veronica Harms.
The much smaller states of Oregon and Washington spend about $6 million and $8 million a year, respectively, on their medical and recreational programs.
Colorado, which has the oldest and most robust recreational marijuana market in the nation, is budgeted to spend $16.3 million regulating legal marijuana this fiscal year, according to Robert Goulding, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Revenue.
The program “pays it own way,” Goulding noted, with industry taxes, licenses and fees covering administrative costs while helping fund such things as school construction, youth education programs and poison control centers.
Still, Prop. 64 opponents, including Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens, say they’re concerned that tax revenue from legal marijuana sales won’t cover harder-to-quantify effects on public safety and health issues.
WHAT ABOUT LOCAL BENEFITS?
One statewide Colorado levy on pot provides cities with money to use as they choose. That allowed Denver to add $29 million to its general fund budget in 2015, the Denver Post reports.
While Prop. 64 doesn’t provide new, dedicated revenue directly to cities and counties, proponents say there are still ways local governments can benefit from the measure.
California cities that permit recreational marijuana businesses could increase income from sales taxes.
There also would be opportunities for governments, schools, public safety agencies and nonprofits in cities that welcome the cannabis industry to compete for hundreds of millions a year in grants that will fund substance abuse programs, offset enforcement costs and more.
Opponents of legalized pot argue all law enforcement agencies should be eligible for such grants, because the ballot measure would permit cultivation and personal consumption of marijuana at residences across the state.
“They’re still going to have to deal with the problems of home grows and use, but there’s no money available to them,” said Andrew Acosta, spokesman for the No on 64 campaign.
Kinney called such criticisms “disingenuous.” He pointed to a Legislative Analyst’s Office estimate that the state will save tens of millions of dollars each year in criminal justice costs if marijuana is legal.
The measure also says cities and counties can ask voters to approve extra local taxes on cannabis.
At least 18 California cities have already approved such levies on medical marijuana shops and farms. Among those is Santa Ana, which expects to collect $1.5 million in pot dispensary fees and taxes this year.
Another 37 local measures appearing on ballots in the state in November call for new taxes on marijuana sales or cultivation. Officials predict those levies could generate up to $22 million a year in revenue for cities and counties.
POT TAX BREAKDOWN
After covering administrative costs, here are some uses for the remaining tax revenue if voters approve Prop. 64:
• $10 million annually for 11 years for public universities in California to evaluate the impact of legalization and recommend policy changes, if needed. Research will cover topics such as public health, public safety and prices.
• $3 million annually for five years to the CHP to develop protocols for determining when drivers are impaired by marijuana, with no good test available now.
• $10 million, increasing to $50 million annually by 2022, for grants to local health departments and nonprofits that support addiction treatment, job placement, mental health treatment and other services for communities such as Compton and Oakland that have been hard-hit by previous drug policies.
• $2 million annually to the UC San Diego Center for Medical Cannabis Research to study marijuana as medicine.
The remaining revenue will be divvied up to include:
• 60 percent to prevent young people from abusing substances by offering grants to schools and county health programs, funding treatment programs, helping at-risk youth and more. Estimated at $450 million or more a year.
• 20 percent to help state environmental agencies restore waterways affected by cannabis cultivation and protect public lands from being used for marijuana activities. Projected to be upwards of $150 million annually.
• 20 percent to the CHP to train officers for detecting DUIs and to offer grants to local law enforcement, fire protection or public health programs in regions where cultivation and sales are allowed. Expected to be some • $150 million or more each year.
Starting in 2028, legislators could funnel revenue to other programs. But they could never reduce the dollar amount going to youth programs, environmental agencies or law enforcement.
So, someone please help me understand how this golden egg (ok, green egg) will help offset our taxes?
If you probe why the polls show a majority of California voters support a statewide effort to legalize recreational marijuana, increased tax revenue inevitably comes up.
UC Irvine student Giovanni Chavez, like many backers of legalized pot, says he’s primarily concerned about personal liberty and studies showing disproportionate prosecution of minorities for drug offenses.
But after watching state and local governments struggle through recurring budget crises, the aspiring political consultant said state-regulated marijuana sales would provide a new and needed stream of tax dollars.
“We could use the extra revenue,” said Chavez, 21. “And the fact that we would be able to interfere with the black market is huge.”
Supporters of legal recreational marijuana use point to Colorado, which legalized cannabis for adults in 2012. There, taxes and fees on weed are helping to build schools, repair roads and stabilize city budgets.
But critics of Proposition 64, California’s legalization initiative on the November ballot, point out tax revenue from legal weed would be dispersed much differently here.
Letitia Pepper, a Riverside attorney who uses medical marijuana to treat multiple sclerosis but is a vocal opponent of the measure, noted none of it would be dedicated to the general operations of local governments or schools.
Proponents acknowledge California’s measure includes key differences in how pot funds could be used. But they add that local governments and students still can benefit from the measure.
An estimated $1 billion in new tax revenue would be directed toward specific new or expanded programs such as drug use prevention and treatment, helping at-risk youth, law enforcement, environmental clean-up and research.
Jason Kinney, spokesman for the Yes on Prop. 64 campaign, said the restrictions on public use of the new tax monies was intentional. If public agencies were allowed to balance their general spending budgets with marijuana taxes, he said, it could create an incentive for them to encourage a bigger marijuana industry.
“The state of California shouldn’t be forced to rely on increased marijuana usage to address future K-12 education, infrastructure and other ongoing budget obligations,” he said.
Instead, Diane Goldstein of North Tustin – a retired police officer who’s campaigning for Prop. 64 – argued that tax revenue from the measure would be wisely used to offset some financial and social harms of the failed war on drugs via increased investment in education, research and treatment.
REVENUE PREDICTIONS
Right now, hundreds of pot businesses operating in California – some with local permits and many without – are paying state sales tax of close to 8 percent.
In 2015, the state took in $58 million in sales tax revenue from some 974 registered dispensaries, including nearly 400 in Los Angeles County and 70 to 80 each in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, according to Board of Equalization data.
That revenue is on track to nearly double this year.
Under Prop. 64, all marijuana sales would be taxed an additional 15 percent starting Jan. 1, 2018, on top of levies on regulated growers of $9.25 per ounce for dry flowers or $2.75 per ounce for leaves. Medical cannabis patients would be exempt from the state sales tax.
The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office predicts Prop. 64 state tax revenues would total from the high hundreds of millions of dollars to more than $1 billion each year.
That’s less than 1 percent of the state’s annual budget, or about what California brings in annually now from taxes on tobacco products.
Keith Humphreys, a Stanford University professor who served on a state commission that studied approaches for legalizing marijuana, summed up the financial impact of Prop. 64 this way: “It’s not going to make us if we do, and it’s not going to break us if we don’t.”
Tax revenue from legalized weed would first be used to cover “all reasonable costs” incurred by the state to administer and enforce the recreational cannabis regulations, according to the ballot measure.
The Department of Consumer Affairs, which would oversee the new marijuana marketplace if Prop. 64 passes, doesn’t have an estimate yet of those administrative costs, according to spokeswoman Veronica Harms.
The much smaller states of Oregon and Washington spend about $6 million and $8 million a year, respectively, on their medical and recreational programs.
Colorado, which has the oldest and most robust recreational marijuana market in the nation, is budgeted to spend $16.3 million regulating legal marijuana this fiscal year, according to Robert Goulding, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Revenue.
The program “pays it own way,” Goulding noted, with industry taxes, licenses and fees covering administrative costs while helping fund such things as school construction, youth education programs and poison control centers.
Still, Prop. 64 opponents, including Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens, say they’re concerned that tax revenue from legal marijuana sales won’t cover harder-to-quantify effects on public safety and health issues.
WHAT ABOUT LOCAL BENEFITS?
One statewide Colorado levy on pot provides cities with money to use as they choose. That allowed Denver to add $29 million to its general fund budget in 2015, the Denver Post reports.
While Prop. 64 doesn’t provide new, dedicated revenue directly to cities and counties, proponents say there are still ways local governments can benefit from the measure.
California cities that permit recreational marijuana businesses could increase income from sales taxes.
There also would be opportunities for governments, schools, public safety agencies and nonprofits in cities that welcome the cannabis industry to compete for hundreds of millions a year in grants that will fund substance abuse programs, offset enforcement costs and more.
Opponents of legalized pot argue all law enforcement agencies should be eligible for such grants, because the ballot measure would permit cultivation and personal consumption of marijuana at residences across the state.
“They’re still going to have to deal with the problems of home grows and use, but there’s no money available to them,” said Andrew Acosta, spokesman for the No on 64 campaign.
Kinney called such criticisms “disingenuous.” He pointed to a Legislative Analyst’s Office estimate that the state will save tens of millions of dollars each year in criminal justice costs if marijuana is legal.
The measure also says cities and counties can ask voters to approve extra local taxes on cannabis.
At least 18 California cities have already approved such levies on medical marijuana shops and farms. Among those is Santa Ana, which expects to collect $1.5 million in pot dispensary fees and taxes this year.
Another 37 local measures appearing on ballots in the state in November call for new taxes on marijuana sales or cultivation. Officials predict those levies could generate up to $22 million a year in revenue for cities and counties.
POT TAX BREAKDOWN
After covering administrative costs, here are some uses for the remaining tax revenue if voters approve Prop. 64:
• $10 million annually for 11 years for public universities in California to evaluate the impact of legalization and recommend policy changes, if needed. Research will cover topics such as public health, public safety and prices.
• $3 million annually for five years to the CHP to develop protocols for determining when drivers are impaired by marijuana, with no good test available now.
• $10 million, increasing to $50 million annually by 2022, for grants to local health departments and nonprofits that support addiction treatment, job placement, mental health treatment and other services for communities such as Compton and Oakland that have been hard-hit by previous drug policies.
• $2 million annually to the UC San Diego Center for Medical Cannabis Research to study marijuana as medicine.
The remaining revenue will be divvied up to include:
• 60 percent to prevent young people from abusing substances by offering grants to schools and county health programs, funding treatment programs, helping at-risk youth and more. Estimated at $450 million or more a year.
• 20 percent to help state environmental agencies restore waterways affected by cannabis cultivation and protect public lands from being used for marijuana activities. Projected to be upwards of $150 million annually.
• 20 percent to the CHP to train officers for detecting DUIs and to offer grants to local law enforcement, fire protection or public health programs in regions where cultivation and sales are allowed. Expected to be some • $150 million or more each year.
Starting in 2028, legislators could funnel revenue to other programs. But they could never reduce the dollar amount going to youth programs, environmental agencies or law enforcement.
So, someone please help me understand how this golden egg (ok, green egg) will help offset our taxes?
http://www.anonews.co/marijuana-banned-reason/
Snip: "So alcohol prohibition finally endedand Harry Anslinger was afraid. He found himself in charge of a huge government department, with nothing for it to do. Up until then, he had said that cannabis was not a problem. It doesnt harm people, he explained, and there is no more absurd fallacy than the idea it makes people violent.
But thensuddenly, when his department needed a new purposehe announced he had changed his mind.
He explained to the public what would happen if you smoked cannabis.
First, you will fall into a delirious rage. Then you will be gripped by dreams of an erotic character. Then you will lose the power of connected thought. Finally, you will reach the inevitable end-point: Insanity.
Marijuana turns man into a wild beast. If marijuana bumped into Frankensteins monster on the stairs, Anslinger warned, the monster would drop dead of fright. "
Snip: "So alcohol prohibition finally endedand Harry Anslinger was afraid. He found himself in charge of a huge government department, with nothing for it to do. Up until then, he had said that cannabis was not a problem. It doesnt harm people, he explained, and there is no more absurd fallacy than the idea it makes people violent.
But thensuddenly, when his department needed a new purposehe announced he had changed his mind.
He explained to the public what would happen if you smoked cannabis.
First, you will fall into a delirious rage. Then you will be gripped by dreams of an erotic character. Then you will lose the power of connected thought. Finally, you will reach the inevitable end-point: Insanity.
Marijuana turns man into a wild beast. If marijuana bumped into Frankensteins monster on the stairs, Anslinger warned, the monster would drop dead of fright. "
Because legislators cannot save a dime instead of using that tax to drop the tax rate or pay debts they spend spend spend. Thats all they know.
