OT: NJ legal weed vote canceled
- Thread starter RU Golfer
- Start date
30% of all ED visits are now psych cases. Nearly a third. There are more urgent problems than people who ate too many gummies.
Exactly, so keep weed illegal and let this ER docs focus on the SZ, dementia, and bipolar patients. We will see what happens in NJ, but never underestimate how stupid Trenton is. The process for trying to get these bills passed was mindbogglingly pathetic. You can literally hear clown music being piped into the state house.
You're neglecting the notion that the number of opiate ODs would go down. That's one of the selling points of readily available cannabis.
Care to guess how many opiate ODs the average NJ ED sees on a daily basis?
Hint: It's more than 3.
How many ER visits are alcohol-related? Again, I have zero issue with people being against marijuana legalization (or at least having serious concerns) but do you really want to bring ER stats into it while saying nothing about the giant 100-proof elephant in the room?
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/news-even...steep-increase-rate-alcohol-related-er-visits
Joe P.
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/news-even...steep-increase-rate-alcohol-related-er-visits
Joe P.
Last edited:
That can be accomplished via expanded medical use, not recreational use. Also, SJ stuff is accomplished via decriminalization. There is a chance that these 2 items more forward and rec use is left out.
IMO there's not a lot of reason to decriminalize but not legalize. If you're not going to prosecute, then you might as well collect the tax revenue.
Legalization has always struck me as a good idea, but I notice that one of the problems the sponsors have is that they can't get the votes needed from black legislators. One would think they would favor legalization because so many more blacks are arrested for use than whites are, but instead the black legislators fear that legalization simply means there will be more marijuana dispensaries in black neighborhoods. They have held to this view despite provisions in the proposed bill that would guarantee some of the action to black entrepreneurs, and that would expunge convictions for many of those convicted of possession and sale. Maybe marijuana use isn't as victimless as we tend to think?
California's experience is that the tax revenue is much less than projected.
The main reason, decriminalization has the votes in Trenton, but rec legalization does not. Politics is the art of the possible.
FYI, complete tangent, new list of the best NJ towns for families came out. Check out #1. :)
https://www.njfamily.com/new-jerseys-best-towns-for-families-the-list-2019/
We were #2 in the state for 3 years, finally got over the hump.
+1
Especially in NJ, they inflate revenues numbers all of the time. The money for legal pot would be a rounding error and spent on political pet projects before it is even collected.
That's not a flaw in the legalization strategy, that's a flaw in revenue projections.
I would submit that the politics of "let's just do what's easy" is a fundamentally flawed concept and is a reflection on the sort of people who get elected nowadays - and the people who elect them.
no, it can't.
one big reason for the reduction in opioid use, is the ease of purchase differential when buying legal pot vs illegal anything else.
any lessening of the purchasing hassle differential, equally lessens the lure in buying pot vs buying harder stuff illegally.
Trenton normally can't even do what is easy. And yes, it is a reflection on NJ residents.
The study was conducted at University of Colorado Hospital
I think you mean to say "it is not possible to die from an overdose of marijuana". And also, it is possible to die from an overdose of marijuana, but it would require smoking more than is practically feasible.
My point is that it makes no sense to consider tax revenue as a good reason for legalization; the money that comes from legalization will be much less than projected.
Again, you can't make that argument based on unreasonable projections. That's not how you make financial decisions.
Please email Murphy and Sweeney's aides with this data. That's pretty awful and such a waste of money.
I would agree though I think non-marijuana drugs should be decriminalized and courts for drug offenses be replaced with treatment courts a la Portugal.
It's not just taxes.
Have any of these studies taken into account that NJ's legislation includes marijuana lounges?
How about the money from people coming from surrounding states- where it's not legal- and then getting hotel rooms, going to dinner and drinks, concerts, etc?
"Marijuana bodegas." If you though Ronald Rice was looney tunes when he was talking about RU he has really gone off the edge.
Yes, that's what will hurt inner city Newark. Businesses with jobs. Liquor stores are fine though.
I sometimes wonder if it's really 1919 and not 2019.
Don’t know about the first two, but the third death “tied to edibles” was actually a self inflicted gun shot to the head
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/03/third-death-in-colorado-linked-to-edible-marijuana/
Edit, the first death was a jumper and the second was a woman shot by her husband.
Given that cannabis is an emerging treatment for depression, I just want to remind people that correlation does not prove causation.
NJ currently spends $154 mm per year arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating cannabis users. That cost works out to $4300 per arrest. Current tax revenue generated by this industry is zero.
Aside from the tax revenue which will be some number greater than zero, you also have to consider the expenses that will be cut. At least 2 of the 13 state prisons will be able to be shuttered (4 of them were opened in the 1987-1992 Just Say No timeframe). Also, the tax revenue generated as a large number of independent Mexican cartel representatives transition to a dispensary job paying $18-20/hour plus tips.
I must have confused you. If you are considering whether to adopt a policy, you will take into account he amount of money it will cost or bring in. One argument that is often made for legalizing marijuana is that it will lead to large tax revenues. But it hasn't in the states that have legalized it. That indicates that "it will raise a lot of money" is a poor argument for legalizing marijuana. There are other arguments for legalizing marijauna, of course; all I'm suggesting is that the revenue argument is not a good one.
As more states legalize marijuana, the argument in your final sentence. Also, considering that marijuana use impairs driving, it is not necessarily desirable to attract a lot of out-of-state visitors. You may recall that New York used to get a lot of traffic from out-of-state because it had an age-18 drinking law, and there were a lot of bad accidents caused by people heading home.
Guys, I'm not opposing legalization. I'm just trying to stress that some of the arguments being made are just not very good. Comes from being a law professor.
Lol, was going to say the same about Flemington.
I drive 31/202 almost everyday. 50/50 chance the car pulled over is a black guy passing thru.
Again, you're missing the point that you're missing.
You say that the tax revenue argument is invalid because California's tax revenues weren't as projected.
That's not supportable. First, it's not like there's zero tax revenue. There simply isn't as much as projected. We haven't explored why the projections were wrong. That's a critically important element that you're completely dismissing. Perhaps the revenue projections were unreasonable. Inflated. Completely fabricated. Maybe California was the Donald Trump of tax revenue projections.
Bottom line is that NJ residents will have to continue using their local dealer as it doesn't look like this will be happening anytime soon.
The problem is the definition of “large tax revenues”. The two most mature markets, Colorado & Washington, collected $250 MM & $320 MM respectively in taxes and fees in 2017. Personally, I feel this is significant revenue, while opponents feel that is “peanuts”.
I’ve done a little analysis of Curaleaf, and based on the new tax structure proposed in NJ, the dispensary in Bellmawr should generate roughly $700,000 to the town. Is that considered “large tax revenues”? Personally I think that number would sway most people into setting up shop on a highway on the edge of town facing out of town.
All due respect to @camdenlawprof, who is one of the more esteemed members of this community, this is a stupid discussion.
In Year 1 of legalization California brought in $345 million in marijuana tax revenue. Yes, that was far short of the $643 million projected by Governor Moonbeam's administration prior to legalization.
But if they had projected $345 million and brought in $345 million, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The talking point is that they missed their projection in Year 1. Since we have no idea how they arrived at that projection, it's really not a conversation worth having. For all we know, "$643 million" came to Jerry Brown in a dream.
In Colorado, revenue predictions were reduced by the governor during the first year of sales. But revenues “now greatly exceed original estimates of $70 million per year,”according to a 2016 analysis from the Tax Foundation. Information from the Colorado Department of Revenue shows that marijuana tax revenues have increased steadily, and in fiscal 2018, the state collected $263.8 million.
In Washington, retail sales began in July 2014, and from the start, tax receipts exceeded expectations, according to the state’s Economic and Revenue Forecast. In fiscal 2018, the state had brought in $367 million in cannabis license fees and taxes, up from $319 million in 2017, $189 million in 2016, and $65.7 million in 2015, according to annual reports from the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board.
In California, legalization of recreational marijuana took effect in 2018. The state fell short of its estimates by $101 million during the first six months, according to a report from the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.
In Alaska, the first legal sales of recreational marijuana took place in fiscal year 2017, and collections of $1.7 million “did not meet projections because licensing took longer than expected,” according to the Alaska Department of Revenue. However, the story doesn’t end there. “After a slow start, this new industry has grown rapidly, and ... the marijuana tax is now generating over $1 million per month in revenue for the state,” according to a state revenue report published in December 2018.
In Oregon, revenues from recreational marijuana have been “substantially higher” than estimates when the measure was on the ballot, according to Joshua Lehner, an economist with the state’s Office of Economic Analysis.
In Nevada, the state brought in 140 percent of the revenue it expected during the first full year of legalization, according to the state’s Department of Taxation.
California is not the only state to have had this problem. Colorado is another example. Maybe New Jersey is being more realistic, but do you really believe that of this Governor and legislature? Probably the figures are as hyped here as elsewhere. So "we'll get a lot of tax revenue" is an invalid argument for legalization, because experience shows that the tax revenue is minor. The reason it is minor, by the way, is that usually illegal dealers can offer better prices, just as bookies in many states with legalized gambling continue to make a good living. That happens because complying with bureaucracy costs money, and so the illegals have an economic advantage -- and the illegals don't pay tax.
Per the post just above yours:
Numbers in the hundreds of millions of dollars aren't "minor". Not for Colorado, not even for New Jersey. That's real money.
And your assertion re: "illegals" is ridiculous. Quality strains in Colorado dispensaries are selling from between $150 and $350 an ounce. That would undercut street prices in most states and definitely in New Jersey.
your assertion re: "illegals
are you talking about something I posted ,I would like you to show me where I said anything about that ?
Or you just put my reply to camdenlawprof
in your message and continued your reply to him under that ?
Why the hell would you want to give the morons in Trenton more money? Major logic gap here.
New weed money = :flush:
Because it's that much less they'd be dipping into my paycheck for.
Really? You actually think that will happen. Whatever new revenue comes in, it will serve as justification to overestimate it and increase spending more than the weed money. My friend, you will be paying more. It's Trenton.
Similar threads
