I suppose now that Gov. Benedict Arnold believes that tax-hikes are the cure-all for all that ails California, he might want to take note of this brainstorm from one of his Democrat friends in the state assembly.
Why treat marijuana like alcohol and of course, tax it royally.
This brainstorm is courtesy of Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) who thinks that this is some cutting-edge issue along the lines of same-sex marriage, medical marijuana. Too bad he does not throw Prop 13 in there as the beginning of the tax-cutting movement that propelled Ronald Reagan to the White House is 1980.
But, a real great point made by The Other McCain is that it is better to keep marijuana illegal because once the government gets it grimy paws on it, they will treat it like any other "sin" tax. And we all know how well that has worked out.
There is no evidence that this back door legalization of marijuana would do anything to curtail crime and illegal activity. But, advocates do not want to be bothered by facts. These advocates are looking at marijuana as another revenue stream.
Lets get real.
The Democrats that all but run California and the enabler-in-chief, Gov. Benedict Arnold, proved that they do not have the stomach to make substantial cuts in government in the not-so Golden State. If that were to happen, we would not hear such rubbish such as legalizing marijuana. And, it would not end there.
In fact, the state is like the drug abuser, looking for the next fix.
For that reason alone, it is best to keep marijuana illegal.
Too bad such brain surgeons as Assemblyman Ammiano are not thinking of ways to cut the size and regulatory nature of government.
3 comments:
There is no evidence that this back door legalization of marijuana would do anything to curtail crime and illegal activity.
Well of course it would, since buying/selling pot would no longer be illegal.
How many people are incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses? What percentage of those offenders are in jail for pot?
Put another way - we already tried prohibition in the early 1900's. How did that work out?
Legalizing pot, and regulating/taxing it like tobacco and alcohol, seems like a good idea to me.
"'There is no evidence that this back door legalization of marijuana would do anything to curtail crime and illegal activity.'
Well of course it would, since buying/selling pot would no longer be illegal.'"
Do you believe there's no crime whatsoever associated with the making of, distribution of, or sales of, alcohol, tobacco and, what they hey let's throw this in, firearms?
Buying and selling those things aren't illegal, are they? Lots of people make their living that way, and the government rakes in tons of dough, yet there's plenty of crime involved. But, for pot, it'd be different?
You wanna free non-violent (as if the term "non-violent" is an automatic Get Out Of Jail Free card) drug offenders? Then change the laws that overreact to those offenses. There's no need to entirely decriminalize marijuana to achieve that goal, just change the sentencing recommendations and mandates.
Prohibition took a widely used legal substance and made it entirely illegal. I don't believe that is a logical comparison to the current situation with pot.
Another thought regarding juicy new tax revenues from pot:
It'll disappear down the same rathole where all the other sin taxes disappear.
Post a Comment