Skip to comments.Marijuana Crushes Grapes as Cash Crop
Posted on 10/20/2010 10:38:20 AM PDT by Nachum
The most persuasive argument for legalizing pot might just be a dollar sign.
California's pot crop is worth $14 billion, according to a state report. The Press Democrat points out that crushes the wine crop which comes in at $2 billion.
Legalization would be a huge shot in the arm for plenty of ancillary industries, such as banking and construction.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcbayarea.com ...
How much you wanna bet that’s retail (inflated at that) value for the pot, but wholesale farm prices for the grapes?
If they want to compare apples to apples, why not compare the retail value of the wine made from the grapes?
Buildings are getting built. The biggest "shot in the arm" would be for the Sacramento tax-and-spend politicians, the new department of state workers to "regulate" the operations, and the union that collects the new dues from them.
NO ON 19! STARVE THE BEAST!
Here in the UK I was nearly deliberately run over last week by a carload of people who a) stank of cannabis, and b) who acted and spoke like classic crazed paranoiacs.
Keep that garbage illegal.
If someone spent their dollar on A instead of on B, it doesn’t mean there are MORE dollars.
You’re right. This doesn’t make sense. Just rhetoric to stoke a flame.
My prediction; CA will legalize mj then regulate it and tax it so heavily that it will still be cheaper and easier to buy it from the drug cartels.
Because grapes are not wine.
You could be right. I'd expect a flurry of people growing it themselves... for a while. But then, I don't make my own wine (which I could) and I don't own a still (which I could). It's so much easier to go downtown and pay a tax on alcohol for a bottle rather than make it myself. I expect the same thing will happen with weed... sooner or later.
Sure, it would be a “huge shot in the arm” for the status quo government which will NOT economize, let people go, bring down costs. It would allow the govt employees unions to continue to line their pockets with new useless govt. employees on their rolls. All paid for by the “new” elite of stone head pot growers. Just what the country needs, like a whole another load of alcoholics, or a new generation of entry level drug addicts. Think how this would affect the status of politics in CA. And all because they won’t rein in govt. size, and ridiculous liberal spending for their pals.
Wow, man, far out! My lord.
And just think how many more positions could be staffed at ATF, FDA, NIH.. National Cancer Institute, etc. Pot is considerably more carcinogenic than tobacco and all its proprietary additives. The deal is... you can get liquid nicotine, vanilla flavored in an electric cigarette, and could do the same with THC (cannabinol)in an oil form. Only legal pot farm in the US is in MS and makes THC for prescription Marinol (TM) used for nausea caused by cancer drugs, and also to stimulate... appetite in the elderly. Oh yeah, buy some stock in Nabisco for their off the page Oreo cookie sales if this ever happens.
Did the whole concept of it already being illegal and not preventing that from happening kinda comes off as ironic?
But hey, it worked for alcohol! Keep it illegal!
Nancy Pelosi should rename her vineyard ‘Columbian Gold Lane Vineyard’
You bet. And just think how many could grow it at home anyway, enough for use not sale.. and how would they tax that? Think of the jobs potential for police, tax collection etc. More than make up for the supposed revenue that would or could be raised. The model doesn’t work. Terminating excess state employees DOES work.
How will they collect the taxes? How many agents and police will it take to try to collect? The product costs little to produce and whatever the tax the illegal producers will undersell them.
The just found 150 TONS of pot in TJ waiting to cross the border into CA. The drug lords aren’t about to pay tax on that or stop producing in Mexico..they are ramping up.
Significant data exists that cannabis use can trigger specific gene markers to exacerbate expression of schizophrenia, so you are not far wrong. Those who have ever wondered about the induced paranoia, the cravings of appetite, and the fat soluble blood-brain crossing nature of this supposedly benign weed. That said, sure put some jazz music out there, but poor Gene Krupa.
If this passes, the state of California will be a drug cartel. This will fit in nicely with them already being in the numbers racket, and all of the other things they do that are illegal for me to do.
What will the street value of pot be when if it were legalized? chances are it would fall 50 percent or more.
He asked me, "Do you know what the penalty for smoking pot while driving is in this state."
I answered, "Election to the governership?"
Still trying to decypher this sentence... 1) OK, people using an illegal drug are paranoid (frequently about getting caught) - got that part. 2) Ccraving of appetite - OK I understsand that too. Pass the beer nuts and slim jims - booze does it too. 3) "the fat soluble blood-brain crossing nature of this supposedly benign weed" - ?? Not sure what you mean here unless you are going to cite some research where they stuffed rats full of super-strong THC and the rats were all screwed up or something? Is that what you meant or am I missing something?
Yeah right, they will rake in billions on trying to tax that...lol. It's too freaking easy to grow if legal to collect much of anything in taxes on retail sales.
I’m buying stock in FritoLay...
Legalization will kill all of the profit in the pot trade.
Not because increased supply would reduce consumer pricing. Unions would take over and profit would be zapped to null.
They could probably just isolate the cannabinoids. But anything can be vaporized (easily in these modern times) to avoid the smoke.
You silly goose, don’t you know that the pro-pot people says that it is IMPOSSIBLE for weed to harm anyone? I mean go to you tube and see ALL the videos that says how weed is so much better than alcohol, that it doesn’t cause intoxicated driving, so surly you must be mistaken(hope I don’t need the /SARC tag!)
Cannabis, pot’s active component is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and is a cannabinoid, as are other compounds like THC in nature and our bodies. Brain research has identified cannabinoid receptors in human brains. Cannabis has been identified having a role in schizophrenia, by activating expression of specific genes which are identified with the disease. Most cannabinoid-like molecules are fat-soluble, meaning they’re attracted to the lipid membranes of cells, and have trouble crossing the blood-brain barrier. The blood brain barrier is a separation of circulating blood and cerebrospinal fluid in the central nervous system. It is found along all capillaries and is made up of very tight areas around the capillaries in the brain that is not found in normal circulation. It is believed to be protective of the brain in this way. THC, the main active compound in marijuana, is a cannabinoid that does cross the blood brain barrier unlike natural brain cannabinoids. So, it crosses the barrier and has demonstrable effects on behaviour and also trigger gene expression in the process. The “dosing” of the gene markers differs in people, and so the studied effects.
Sorry, meant to paragraph this.
Bottom line is that anything that crosses the blood brain barrier can cross over to have profound effects on brain function, or neurologic function.
THC does this more in some people than others, but it does it. Not preaching, just saying.
Thanks for the explanation. Honestly though, I just haven’t seen it and I have known a number of long time users. I sincerely doubt we are going to see more schitzophrenics when marijuana is legal. I do believe we will see new problems because there are always unintended consequences of any actions but that doesn’t mean the bad effects and unintended consequences of keeping it illegal are better than those from making it legal. When it doubt, I think it’s best to error on the side of freedom.
As for the argument that you don't want to grow government, so we should keep something illegal because to legalize it will take more government. What? The entire War on Drugs has grown government and given the federal government way more power than is necessary, IMHO. It seems a little strange to make an argument that we need to continue keeping something illegal to reduce the size of a government which spends great gobs of money keeping something illegal. So I should keep spending tax money to keep something illegal because I think I'd have to spend more tax money making it legal? At least money derived from taxing a legal product is based on a use tax and not a tax on everyone and everything like the taxes that support a drug enforcement policy that has been a colossal failure (if the real intent was to limit its use).
Finally with respect to your assurance that "People of belief, given reliable information can at least restrict their own temptation in this and many other areas of self-limitation.". Fine. Then what's your problem? Self-limit all you want. If it's the people of non-belief that you are worried about, where do you draw the line in passing laws to enforce your own morality on the non-believers? Is that what the founders wanted - people of faith to legistlate so non-believers who aren't strong enough won't be tempted? I'm not buying that either.
Both prescription and recreational drugs, including marijuana can cause or worsen the symptoms. So one should not be so cavalier as to the outcome or with a broad brush dismissal of a well studied disorder. The trials I was speaking about have been done with placebo and cannabis.The genetic data is compelling whether one “buys” it or not- rational thought and large cultural experience to date should give one pause, to be sure. A shotgun approach of “let's see what happens” on the basis of prejudiced self serving endpoints, driven by illicit political money is irresponsible.
As for the taxes that could be collected on a weed that can be cultivated easily at home (just like they did behind jazz clubs in Texas), I doubt any revenue model can justify legalization for revenue. Unless of course one is with RJ Reynolds et al and you're sitting on a warehouse full in South America (I have friends in the tobacco business who have seen this- and they are trying).
To clarify: my argument is that if we shrank government we wouldn't need to expand the use of what is clearly not a benign agent. We don't need to seek new revenue streams- we have enough now. Legalization for revenue is a easy argument of convenience, and a false one. The argument for pot falls down in this particular article since it does not account for the market value of “wine” or even raisins for that matter. It does not add up to compare illicit trade market value from limited acreage crop (and indeed who is doing the counting of the tonnage?) to current legal market value of wine/raisins with vastly more acreage. A stupid comparison by people with an agenda.
As for disdain shown for people of belief, I was not preaching my beliefs. A review of the Founders, who were deists, is that they believed religion and belief were essential to stability of free people in a society governed by rule of law, and that respect and adherance to the rule of law could not be had without morality.
Washington said “Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” The limits of personal freedom are of course the damage to another that may be done.
Broad unrestrained freedom, runs up against the reality of the damage to society caused by those who cannot or will not control themselves and why we must have laws to restrict things that have proven to be destructive. It is especially egregious to use our God given freedom and rights to support facile arguments against “legislating morality”. Some things are not legal, and should not be legal when one is well informed and whose understanding of freedom is delimited by our Constitution. The Founders knew what they were talking about and human nature has not changed. Deo Vindice
The Weeds of Wrath.
Well its a matter of settled law that it is federal control. Firearms, in my opinion are another matter, as this involves a right to keep and bear arms. My personal preference this would be true for alcohol/liquor which to some extent is controlled within state jurisdiction (state stores). Isn’t it interesting that alcohol, tobacco and firearms merit their own executive enforcement agency, as a result of control through taxes? Firearms have no business being in that group.
The marijuana tax act of 1937 was repealed by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which placed pot as a Schedule I agent, along with heroin and many other psychoactive agents, which is controversial but that’s where it is, and puts it as federal.
Insofar as CA legalizing pot, it would affect interstate commerce even as it is federally illegal by the 1970 CSA so the Commerce Clause would be invoked in the enforcement certainly. As a states rights issue you raise an interesting challenge from a Tenth Amendment perspective that the fed govt. does not have the power to regulate this delegated to it in the Constitution.
In the past, Commerce Clause has won out over 10th in this type of thing. Not going to pass however- but if it does there is no way federal law and DOJ would not intervene.
Stupid is as stupid does. Just say NO!
No reason to try to discuss any further. Clearly there are voices out there only heard by one of us. All I can say is that must have been the other who posted. He'll come around when he sees his first case ever of a raving schitzophrenic who did nothing more that smoke joints. Then you can say, "told you so". Until then, ave atque vale ;-)
CA doesn’t have 10th amendment authority, any more than it would to legalize heroin. Pretty clear, but apparently not to the supporters of this. It won’t happen, and the practical reality is that medical marijuana is being exposed for what it is, psuedo health issues to market product.
It was your choice of words that I was making an “assurance” about people of belief. Rather assumptive of you, and to my reading, a tone disdainful of people of belief.
I wasn’t assuring you, nor preaching, but trying to delineate the segment of society that does not need limitation vs. those segments who do and always will. I responded, since you asked, about the Founders and my understanding of their concepts of morality and the law. Pretty straightforward, and I don’t have any response from you on that.
Believe what you want- I will not be telling anyone “I told you so”- I won’t have to.If you first acknowledge, and then dismiss the multi-generational, documented public health data on marijuana abuse or the scholarly work of dedicated professionals who have identified genetic markers that are exacerbated by this non-benign drug, then there really isn’t much dialogue to be had here.
Using the word “raving” to describe a schizophrenic is clear enough as to the limitation of your understanding of the disease state- so ruinous to the lives of creative, formerly productive people. The studies didn’t say these patients did nothing more than smoke joints, since they already had markers for schizophrenia, co-morbid symptoms and concomitant medication. The statistical result was significant and differentiated- pot exacerbated their condition in those with the markers.
This is a very disturbing topic to the chronic user community, and heretofore one which was just somebody’s opinion. Now the data is out, despite the facts, a hostile reaction from the same crowd as before is to be expected. People in the mental health field have been quite vocal about all this and finally are being heard. Glad you have read Catullus.A posteriori primum non nocere. Deo Vindice.
Then your answer must be that you would support fedgov using the Commerce Clause to shut down CA's legalization program if it passes. Why can't you just come out and say so?
I have a simple yes/no question. Do you think the Wickard decision was in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause... YES or NO?
Could be, and that would create a big opening for the cartels in an expanded market, since possession of “legal” vs. cartel pot couldn’t be distinguished, assuming the law doesn’t provide for “bonded” packaging of some sort or proof of a tax paid for the stuff by the user. Would that stabilize the price, cartel and non-cartel, and how long would that last. After prohibition was over, the bonded liquor took over the market from the illegal, and home brew.
I don’t support legalization for clinical reasons I’ve been wrangling with rhombus about in several exchanges. A thorny question for me as a conservative as my politics run into chemical knowledge.
My answer/opinion to you is based on what is true now in the CSA laws, and current enforcement. I don’t think pot will be de-listed from Schedule I, and because of that the federal government will prevail using the same means that keeps other Schedule I agents in their control.
The precedence is there from other agents in the class. The outcome would be the same (however they would legally enforce it) if there was a move to legalize, say, heroin (or any other Schedule I). Unless RJ Reynolds has a fix in to get all this done (LOL).
I think the Wickard decision, on the face of it was none of the govt.’s business and meddling with an efficient farmer, (if you mean Wickard vs. Filburn) FDR depression extending BS in 1942-about like soviet agriculture. But hell, FDR took away personal gold possession just for starters. To this day, you cannot legally distill your own ethanol vs. wine (course people do anyway) and all for the sake of taxes.
Dope is another story- even so, people will still grow their own. The human cost makes me weary. Sorry to have irritated you.
So you believe Wickard was not in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause. Yet, you would support fedgov acting under the Wickard Commerce Clause to shut down CA's legalization program.
That is known as contempt for the Constitution, specifically the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment.
Not getting any of that. Not at all certain Wickard would be the basis for continuance of what is settled federal drug law enforcement. Not being an attorney or having a dog in the hunt. Seems like all this was decided in 1937 in the Marijuana Tax act and subsequent revisions, and creation of the Controlled Substance Act and not the Commerce Clause.
The legal stance for federal enforcement of drug laws goes back further than 1942, and my point is valid that the net result will still be federal enforcement, even after significant legal briefs are argued and decided.
I would think that the legalization advocates ought to work on the re-scheduling of the drug first— you know, make it benign. But that might be well nigh impossible due to pharmaco-reality. This isn’t booze.
I’m a Southron, so I have a very high respect for the 10th Amendment, and States Rights since they were so greatly ignored and abused from 1832 onward as to tariffs, trade, and private property.
And yes, I've read Catullus and lots of other dead people too (5 years of Latin and 1 year of ancient Greek). "Ah but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now." (I've also read Dylan and so far with no ill effects beyond a healthy disrespect of government.)