The California Board of Equalization did a study last year and concluded that regulated cannabis could bring in around $1.4 billion per year in additional taxes. It is also claimed that a commercial cannabis law will save money from no longer having to arrest and prosecute most marijuana-related crimes, but with that said, I wonder how much more cost the social cost may be from having another "intoxicant" (which is what some consider it) readily available (for non-medical use) ? Won't we still have to prevent unauthorized and or unlicensed growers and distribution (other than for Prop 215 patients and co-ops) and use (e.g. driving under the influence)? It seems like impact studies are needed. The role of federal regulations may also make such a proposition a useless act?
..
I asked an on-line forum the following questions(for a forum to be held on May 19 at 5:30 p.m. with "Tax Cannabis 2010 spokesperson Dale Clare", a live online discussion where she'll be taking questions about the campaign)--Click here to submit a question for the broadcast!);
..
(1) Putting aside the current DEA and County enforcement issues with Prop 215, what will be the law enforcement cost and additional court costs enforcing the commercial licenses to grow & distribute? Will there be a savings?
..
(2) What will be the increase, if any, in marijuana related intoxication crimes (driving under the influence, public "intoxication", etc) and where will the money be for law enforcement services to protect against any increased risk to the public--will the tax revenue from the new law be diverted to just law enforcement??
No comments:
Post a Comment