Arnold: Time to discuss marijuana legalization, even though I oppose it
posted at 12:55 pm on May 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Talk about mixed messages! California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says it’s time to discuss marijuana legalization in California. Then he says he opposes legalization. The Governator then suggests that the state could realize some tasty revenues from a marijuana tax — but then says revenues shouldn’t be the motivator.
You may need a joint for the pain from whiplash on this one:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says California should study other nations’ experiences in legalizing and taxing marijuana, although he is not supporting the idea.
He says it’s time to debate proposals such as a bill introduced in the Legislature earlier this year that would treat marijuana like alcohol. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, says taxing marijuana at $50 per ounce would bring more than $1 billion a year to the state.
Schwarzenegger said during a Tuesday news conference that “it’s time for debate” on the idea. But he warned against making harmful decisions just for the sake of raising money.
Is the notion really so radioactive that Schwarzenegger has to do this dance just to raise the possibility? We used to tweak John Kerry for his flip-flops, but this makes Kerry look practically Churchillian in comparison. It’s akin to a politician picking plaid as his favorite color.
There is nothing wrong with considering potential revenues in a debate over legalization, and that isn’t the only economic factor that should be considered. How much does California spend on enforcing marijuana prohibition? Has medical-marijuana legalization, conducted in a particularly lax manner, resulted in escalating crime and dependency and marijuana-related deaths, or just less hassle and less infringement on civil liberties? Maybe the governor of the state could focus on producing answers to those questions.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
How much does it cost the state to house people convicted on marijuana charges?
BadgerHawk on May 6, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Getting stoned fixes everything?
Has Arnolds recall begun yet?
roninacreage on May 6, 2009 at 12:57 PM
What a hypocrite, in pumping iron he was filmed inhaling pot so to say he for legalizing and not against it is laughable.
jaboba on May 6, 2009 at 12:58 PM
girlyman
dmann on May 6, 2009 at 12:58 PM
I appreciate the emphasis you put on this in your posts Ed. Rational, ‘this is whats up’ info without the hysteria that usually follows this debate. Thanks.
ThackerAgency on May 6, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Nah. Hypocrisy has been the mainstay of the MJ prohibitionist movement since their inception.
FloatingRock on May 6, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Fine them, don’t house them. Treat it like a traffic ticket, or open container laws.
roninacreage on May 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM
This just might work,Liberal’s all smacked up on
Marry Jane,and gooned on Kool Aid!!
canopfor on May 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Legal marijuana?
Psh.
I’m more interested in nude beaches!
Arnold should stick to fighting SkyNet and preventing it from becoming self aware
blatantblue on May 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM
You might as well legalize it then.
Kini on May 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Thanks!!
Ed Morrissey on May 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Why couldn’t you just use a tax as a pre-emptive fine and forgo the court costs?
ThackerAgency on May 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Maybe Kali-fownia will adopt the 10th amendment to eliminate federal drug laws for pot grown and used within California.
Montana passed a law exempting firearms and ammunition produced in Montana from federal regulations.
Federalism, here we come.
Right_of_Attila on May 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Only if there is age segregation
Kini on May 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM
ThackerAgency on May 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM
It will not be taxed if it’s an underground operation like it is now.
roninacreage on May 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Oh yes!!! Let’s make California (and the rest of America) even “stupider” than they already are! That will help matters tremendously!
ErinF on May 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM
What about taxing munchies?
Kini on May 6, 2009 at 1:04 PM
If it is legalized, the anti-smoking Nazis will have it banned from public use. Just as tobacco is.
roninacreage on May 6, 2009 at 1:05 PM
18 and above. No creepy old men, no legalize marijuana lobbyists
blatantblue on May 6, 2009 at 1:05 PM
This assumes that everyone is buying it from the government and not growing their own, so I expect they get a faction of this estimate.
JeffinSac on May 6, 2009 at 1:05 PM
What about other drug paraphernalia?
Can we tax that also?
Kini on May 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM
It won’t save you, Arnold. You know that the legislature will spend an additional $1.45 for every $1 in projected tax revenue, and you’ll be back for more taxes. Give it up and go home. All you would be doing is making it harder for people like me to hire decent employees.
Vashta.Nerada on May 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM
What a better way to increase the welfare state. Fat, lazy, stupid, and now stoned.
roninacreage on May 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM
A LOT of people would rather pay the tax and go around the shady underground people if they could. And actually, even as an underground operation, they make the laws based on tax evasion.
When someone gets busted with ‘weight’ (dealer term for a crapload of pot), they get charged with possession with intent. But the KILLER is that they get a tax bill based on the weight that they are busted with. So they are guilty of not paying the taxes (not buying the marijuana tax stamps available at the post office) on the pot that they illegally had.
The tax system is already in place even though it is underground. Most dealers get screwed more when the tax bill comes than when they get sentenced to jail or whatever.
ThackerAgency on May 6, 2009 at 1:07 PM
“I vant to say that I oppose marywanna. Dis is the trut. Howevah, I vant to say equally dat marywanna is not so bad. Like smoking. Or beink married to dat Maria Shriver chick. So, I haf decided that I vill no longer smoke cigars. Maybe Maria can show me how to roll a fatty?”
[The Governator overheard prior to his Tuesday news conference.]
coldwarrior on May 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM
He was against it, before he was for it, but against it, before he was for it….then against it, before he was for it.
Perhaps Ahnald needs a vacation, or some ridalin.
capejasmine on May 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Legalization proponenets think that legalizing mj will be good for the tax revenue.
Seriously? You think the government of California will all of a sudden become the frgual arbiters of tax money genereated from legalizaiton of mj – why?
Based on their finaicial acumen up to this point, the logic just ain’t there.
Yes, it would generate tax revenue, but thinking anything will be done with it – other than spending it on the same government crap – is delusional.
catmman on May 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM
That would net revenue right there and it would stop police from treating pot smokers like felons, thus freeing up that money.
Of course if the government could be responsible with spending this might actually mean they could balance their budget, but is anyone here really naive enough to believe they wouldn’t just spend the extra money?
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 1:09 PM
When it’s legal, people will grow their own and pay nothing for it, pay no taxes for it.
It is, however, a good way to put pot dealers out of business and turn them into strictly coke dealers.
roninacreage on May 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM
This guy’s an even bigger idiot than Gray Davis. Hollywood moron.
HomeoftheBrave on May 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Then why were you arguing legalization would be a “drag” for smokers?
Maybe that’s true in California, but that’s not a federal law.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM
no doubt, get that dropout rate even higher. “Dude, what happened?”, “I don’t know”, “cool, pass the cheetoes”.
kirkill on May 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM
…who lost a race for San Francisco mayor by being too liberal. Really.
calbear on May 6, 2009 at 1:11 PM
There are topless beaches in CA…would that work for you? Saaaaa…aren’t you supposed to be in class?
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 1:11 PM
This guy is so half-assed that it’s comical. What a disaster.
marklmail on May 6, 2009 at 1:12 PM
I like this pragmatic, middle-of-the-road, moderate Republicanism! If we can project this sort of strongly-held-confusion and malleable principles, then the people of America are sure to follow us!
Kasper Hauser on May 6, 2009 at 1:14 PM
I used to work for an A&D counseling firm…one of the arguments against legalization for pot is that the pot addicts in rehab outnumber the alcoholics in rehab.
Not necessarily true. The thing they don’t admit to is that a person can drive around in their car all day long with a keg in the back seat of their car, but if they don’t drink it until they get home, the authorities can’t (and won’t) do anything to them. However, if a person is stopped for a reason and pot is found on the person, even if they haven’t smoked it, they are charged according to the law.
I have no problem with that, as that is the law. The problem comes when the person charged with possession goes to court and is told by their PD that part of their plea agreement will include required A&D counseling. Unless a person gets a DUI while consuming alcohol, that isn’t something the drinker will have to deal with. An alcoholic who only drinks at home isn’t really in danger of having to agree to rehab as part of a plea bargin.
I don’t say all that to say I support legalization, but only to say that the argument that it is worse than alcohol, with regards to addiction, is not one I necessarily agree with. In fact, as an adult child of an alcoholic, during my teenage years I would have disagreed with said argument.
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Legalize it. Tax the purchasers and growers.
Take a bite out of the Mexican drug cartels and some of the crap going on down on the border.
Knucklehead on May 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Making pot legal,but..but..but..I dunno..I..I..
mean..it’ll be extra smoke,extra heat,I ..mean
what about the polar ice caps..and..I..dunno..
I mean..what about Global Warming..I..I..just
don’t know,I mean… …(Snark).
canopfor on May 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Pfeiffer Beach ring a bell? :-)
coldwarrior on May 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Not likely. Those same people could be growing vegetables instead of buying them but they buy veggies at the grocery store anyway.
Guardian on May 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Not taking sides, but veggies aren’t taxed at $.50/oz.
Vashta.Nerada on May 6, 2009 at 1:18 PM
I doubt that people will pay taxes on it, but I would not be surprised to see that “grow licenses” would be required.
rw on May 6, 2009 at 1:18 PM
The people arguing for taxing it after they legalize it don’t care about the income generated by the tax revenues or what government promises to do with the taxes. They just want their legal pot and don’t care what other attachments there are.
Kelligan on May 6, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Not that I’ve been there…I do understand the views are great.
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 1:18 PM
So this is what happens to Republicans when they shag Kennedys. It ain’t pretty.
+ 5
ExcessivelyDiverted on May 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Anything to distract people from the fact that California is about to go tits up on his watch is a positive, I guess.
manofaiki on May 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Yes, they are.
coldwarrior on May 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM
When all one does is try and twist with the wind, one ends up pretty twisted.
But don’t worry about it California. Whatever mess Gov. Schwarzenegger leaves behind when he exits office, I’m sure Gov. Stallone will be able to fix.
Kasper Hauser on May 6, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Anything to distract from the fact that California is about to go belly up and ask for a Federal bailout is a positive in Arnold’s eyes, I guess.
manofaiki on May 6, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Your home grown stuff costs more – in the end – than the stuff you buy in the grocery store.
lorien1973 on May 6, 2009 at 1:23 PM
I always knew I liked california for a reason. Never knew why!!
Done with class. On way home.
Where’s that?
Shout out to hawkdriver. Just saw a c130 fly low alt overhead stay safe.
As for legal weed, would it hurt drug tradfickrrs?
What strength would the legal weed be? What standards?
Will it be lower strength, leading ppl 2 buy better stuff illegally?
blatantblue on May 6, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Arnold, move out of your home. She’s not worth it.
bluelightbrigade on May 6, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Time to discuss not driving Cali into the ground with bloated gov’t and excessive regulation and taxes.
Clark1 on May 6, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Lets see,me thinks,Arnold was smoking da weed,
I think,in Pumping Iron!!
canopfor on May 6, 2009 at 1:27 PM
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Yes, they are.
coldwarrior on May 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM
No there not.
In the movies and in books they are populated by hotties. In reality…Imagine Michelle Obama as the prettiest gal on the nude beach and work your way down to Rosie. I was so traumatized I almost became a priest.
LincolntheHun on May 6, 2009 at 1:27 PM
That’s at Big Sur, right? Some friends and I camped at the primitive campsite there in 1976. I could write a book about that experience.
Even then, on the beach they were “Dancing in the Nude”, as Martin Mull used to sing.
Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Personally, I’ve been smoking weed for 33 years and I think this a good idea.
Fuzzlenutter on May 6, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Arnie: “Get
Out!”High!”Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Who’ll make the pot brownies?
blatantblue on May 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Hey Braunschwagger – let’s start talking about impeachment, even though I oppose it.
Daggett on May 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Cannabis neither needs to be legalized or decriminalized. It needs to be RELEGALIZED. The government has no right to tell me what foodstuffs or other substances I can consume. What’s next, a fat tax? Oh, they’ve already talked about that?….
adamsmith on May 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Wojo’s girlfriend.
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Taxing at $50 an ounce? If it’s legalized, then seriously, what is the true cost of producing an ounce of pot? A couple of dollars? Why would it exceed, say, the cost of a pack of cigarettes, roughly one ounce, which goes for $3? This proposal is certainly not completely baked.
Paul-Cincy on May 6, 2009 at 1:34 PM
:[
who’s wojo
blatantblue on May 6, 2009 at 1:34 PM
I never thought any HUMAN could make me as a Californian MISS Gray Davis but Ahnuld sure has managed…..
What an utter BUFFOON! too bad we can retroactively tax Sterioids……
SDarchitect on May 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Is the affect on drug trafficking important to this issue? I think perhaps it could be. Would it reduce smuggling, or would the traffickers merely find another drug as well as become more desperate (and violent) as their money pool began to sprng a leak?
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Have you ever heard of the t.v. show Barney Miller? I know you’re young but still…
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Pot is a weed it grows anywhere. Tax revenue from it will be a joke. Why would anyone pay for it with taxes when they can grow it in a pot on their deck? Or buy it from their next door neighbor that does?
Rocks on May 6, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Just say no!
I wonder if Nancy Reagan approves.
The Wall on May 6, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I thought it was a federal law. But it is how they do it in 20 states. The point is that even though it is illegal, the government still taxes it already. They already have a tax system in place for it. . . they wouldn’t need to create anything new.
ThackerAgency on May 6, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Theoretically, not in favor of drug legalization. Practically speaking, though, I think the time has come for it because of the impact it would have on crime in our nation, and on narco-terrorism abroad.
exhelodrvr on May 6, 2009 at 1:39 PM
LOL
Theworldisnotenough on May 6, 2009 at 1:39 PM
*head-to-desk*
*head-to-desk*
*head-to-desk*
Half baked, half fried.
Count to 10 on May 6, 2009 at 1:40 PM
http://brettsconstitution.blogspot.com/2009/04/potheads.html
radjah shelduck on May 6, 2009 at 1:41 PM
This is a great idea that I totally disagree with, that I think should be done pronto in an alternate world but not this one.
LibTired on May 6, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Why not drill for oil instead……..?
Seven Percent Solution on May 6, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Why would anyone pay for it with taxes when they can grow it in a pot on their deck?
Jesus, this is stupid. Do people get bathtub Gin from their neighbor too?
It takes six to eight weeks to go from seedling to flowering. It takes an increible amount of care and dedication to make sure your plants don’t suffer from any kind of disease and that they are getting the proper amount of time at the proper times. You have to make sure that it recives nitrogen heavy nutrients during the vegetative phase and phosphorus and postassium heavy nutrients during the flowering stage. If you want something that is actually of good quality, you also have make sure that you add in good supplements like rhizobacteria and enzymes. If you don’t change the lighting schedule at just the right time during devlopment, it will be terrible. And once its time to harvest, it will still be a couple weeks before you enjoy it because you have to go through the slow, painstaking process of harvesting it, removing the leaves, and drying it.
Once pot is legalized, what pothead do you think will be willing through that months of hard work just to get high. The free market will take over, providing consumers with higher quality and cheaper MJ than they could ever grow at home.
justfinethanks on May 6, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Weed, it’s not just for breakfast any more.
Bishop on May 6, 2009 at 1:44 PM
I don’t think pot is much of the cross-border drug trade (in CA, it is grown on federal land an other-people’s-property in general). I think a lot of meth is also home-grown. The cross-border stuff is mostly cocaine and heroin, I think, and legalizing pot just might up the demand for those.
Count to 10 on May 6, 2009 at 1:45 PM
$50 an oz? Are they crazy? People will stick with the black market.
Joe Caps on May 6, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Slight problem with that theory. Go and ask anyone in those 20 states on where to get that stamp, and they’ll laugh in your face because they really don’t exist.
Trust me, I know all about it. Medical marijuana is legal in several states. Please read my above paragraph, same applies.
Knucklehead on May 6, 2009 at 1:47 PM
I think they should do that too. Isn’t it ironic that the federal government bans weed, but California allows it. And even though there is a federal ban on offshore drilling, if there wasn’t one, California wouldn’t allow it.
But both have the same impact. The government keeping people from doing something unilaterally ‘because they said so’. That’s not what freedom was supposed to mean.
ThackerAgency on May 6, 2009 at 1:48 PM
The stuff grows wild along old highway routes, where it was planted by the government to provide hemp for rope during the war. I don’t think it requires that much care – they don’t call it weed for nothing.
Vashta.Nerada on May 6, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Who cares about Ahnuld?
Fox needs to get that Jan Jeffcoat on the national set, stat.
And what ever happened to the hot economist?
BuckeyeSam on May 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Has anyone considered the affect it would have on the culture as corporations selling pot would inevitabley produce slick ad campaigns to increase sales? It is being compared to alcohol, not tobacco, so I would expect to see the equivalent of beer commercials on the networks or hard alcohol on the cable nets at the very least.
“Just say no” would be replaced with “just say yes, but only after you turn 18 or 21.” The advertising culture in this country would be prepping children to become consumers of the product when they come of age.
rw on May 6, 2009 at 1:53 PM
LOL! Awww Ahnald was just hoping to get a puppy from Uncle Teddy, like Obama has.
capejasmine on May 6, 2009 at 1:54 PM
It does take that amount of care and then some. The cost of the running the lights alone is a major cost factor. And the time and effort of caring for the plants is huge. Getting the timing right is a major pain, and deteremining your males and females is an art. The male plants are worthless and can destroy your crop.
That stuff you’re talking about that grows along roads is basically called ditch weed for a reason. It’s worthless.
Knucklehead on May 6, 2009 at 2:00 PM
You don’t smoke hemp. If you don’t care for it, it will grow outside (assuming that the police don’t find it or your neighbors don’t find it and call the police), but it won’t be worth anything.
They call the good stuff ‘kind bud’ because in order to get the good stuff, you have to be KIND TO THE PLANTS. If you just throw it out on the side of the highway, you won’t get kind bud and you can smoke it all day without getting anything but sore lungs.
ThackerAgency on May 6, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Yeah, I believe so. I’ll give them credit, though, for keeping their eye on the goal and not getting distracted with why Arnie needs the tax income.
a capella on May 6, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Whoa, man…I mean, like…gnarly idea, man…
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Actually, as I recall it, marijuana made dandelions look like fussy, difficult plants. They’ll grow in all kinds of climates, all kinds of soils, they’re relatively pest-free…
Now, if you’re looking for something more potent than ditch weed, that’s another story — but if it’s legal, why not just use more?
cthulhu on May 6, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Ah-nuld, you won’t be back.
Andy in Agoura Hills on May 6, 2009 at 2:10 PM
You are dead on. ‘Weed’ indeed. I knew of a certain Christian summer camp that had the stuff growing wild along some of the trails for many years.
The place wasn’t Stoner Central b/c the plants never got any help whatsoever – thus the THC content was lousy – and the regular anti-poison-ivy/oak sprays usually hit the wild weed too. In the end it was the smoker’s equivalent of a crabapple tree. Oh yes, and anyone who actually tried making a joint had Bad Things happen to them.
Dark-Star on May 6, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Indeed. Most people have grown up with marijuana being illegal, and just can’t seem to imagine a time whenever it wasn’t. Most people are also very ignorant about why it was ever made illegal in the first place.
It’s illegal, and it’s bad. Fortunately that’s not a very convincing argument, at least as shown by recent decriminalization/legalization efforts in several states.
This grand social experiment is coming to an end, thank God.
-
deesine on May 6, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Right Arnold. And when it comes time to veto this idea that you oppose, you’ll sign off on it. What a moron! Why not shoot for prostitution, casio gambling and take over the crack trade from M13 gang members? Go the whole nine yards Girlie Man!
kens on May 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM
So a simple hydroponics system with a computerized module to control nutrients and lighting can do it.
Where is that guy who does the Sham-Wow infomercials?
Right_of_Attila on May 6, 2009 at 2:14 PM
My bet’s on Starbucks.
Except for making it legal of course.
No, but then Gin is very cheap. Make it an extra $50 an ounce and hell yes people will start making it themselves.
That’s pure BS. It’s a WEED. It grows like a weed. If you want it to be perfect, yeah it takes plenty of time, but if you just want dirt weed, it really takes little to no effort.
With $50 an ounce in taxes tagged on? You’ve got to be kidding. How is that going to make it cheaper?
Yes, pot heads will grow, as they already do.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Get rid of the welfare state and any sort of universal health care (as well as state-mandated ‘drug treatment’ in health care policies) and throw the gates wide open.
I’m beyond tired of being responsible (whether in taxes for law enforcement or increased health care premiums) for what other people put in their own bodies.
I’m not under any delusions that legalizing drugs will get rid of organized crime (they make plenty of money off of human trafficking and designer knockoffs as it is). However, if the laws are changed so that I’m not affected by someone else’s choice to do drugs, I’m more than happy to vote in favor of their right to do any drug they please.
JadeNYU on May 6, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Yep, and that’s for high quality stuff.
It’s not highly potent, but it’s not worthless either.
Yes, but again, not everyone likes that kind. There are personal tastes here. And if you tax it like crazy, why wouldn’t someone legally grow it instead?
Yes, people don’t grow tomatoes even though they’re easy, but who really cares that much about tomatoes? Do people really crave tomatoes or any other vegetable for that matter? Also, they’re cheap enough already, so it’s not nearly as cost effective.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »