The Colorado revenue is less than one percent of the state's revenue. ttps://www.cpr.org/news/story/where-does-all-the-marijuana-money-go-colorado-s-pot-taxes-explained
OT: NJ legal weed vote canceled
- Thread starter RU Golfer
- Start date
The Colorado revenue is less than one percent of the state's revenue. ttps://www.cpr.org/news/story/where-does-all-the-marijuana-money-go-colorado-s-pot-taxes-explained
What's the threshold for a revenue generating program, in your opinion? If something is less than 10% of total revenue, is it not worth doing?
For years my wife did that UPromise thing. You shop online through their portal and you get rebates that go toward college expenses for the kids. It's like 2% of your total online purchases. Every year she'd generate a couple hundred bucks that we'd use for textbooks.
Should she not have done that? Was it a waste of time?
New Jersey's total taxes collected on the sale of alcohol in 2018 was about $130 million. That's less than 0.5% of total revenue. Should we outlaw liquor sales? Is the money just not worth collecting?
Because the alternative for the last 80 years has been sending that money to warlords in Juarez. Given the choice, I’d rather keep the money local.
And once again, it’s NOT a new industry. The NJ cannabis market is estimated to be about $1.3 billion. As a comparison, the #1 legal cash crop currently in NJ is blueberries, which bring in $66 million in revenue to farmers per year.
Haha well I was not born so I don't but I would categorize this more along the lines of when AC used to beat Vegas for revenue, as I don't think weed & driving are as a big an issue as alcohol and driving, and NY has more Ronald Rices and Holly Schepisis than we do. PA has a right wing legislature. DE not sure but that is less of a concern. And unfortunately, even if Dems pull a royal flush in 2020 which I do not think it is out of the question, I would be shocked to my core if we could count on Joe Manchin and a few others not screwing us royally on making this change. Like gambling this will be decades long process. I hope I am wrong.
To me it is a win win to legalize a substance that does not kill, is partly medicinal, and that can make money.
As Johnny pointed out there will also be savings in less need for law enforcement and prisons- and my guess is NJ is spending a lot more per citizen for those things.
How many of those states have 565 fiefs, with far too many worrying about weed because they had very little else to be spending their time on...this is a very NJ problem we have
Question about the busted revenue predictions: doesn’t that mean that estimates on the illegal cannabis market are ridiculously exaggerated? Almost like law enforcement is making a bigger deal out of cannabis use than the statistics show in order to continue funding the War on Drugs? Having been to legal state dispensaries, I can say the bulk of transactions I have witnessed have been in the $20-30 range. Hardly the stuff of Cheech & Chong and more like soccer mom replacing “Wine Time” with edibles and balms.
FWIW, the evidence on marijuana and driving impairment is somewhat divided. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving
Part of the problem is doing studies is that marijuana users in accidents often have also had alcohol. It is clear that marijuana impairs the kind of abilities that are needed in driving, but the numbers are ambiguous on whether marijuana indeed has an effect on accident rates. Again, the link above is helpful on this.
I'm a little shy about attracting to NJ more people who will be driving in the state in an impaired state. But maybe the advantages outweigh it.
thanks for the info.
that said, OJ went to McDonalds before Ron and Nicole were offed.
i never heard them characterized as "McDonalds related deaths".
Last edited:
The argument for impaired drivers is dumb. Marijuana is already out there and it isn’t a problem. Drunk drivers, texting drivers, distracted drivers, sleepy drivers are much worse than high drivers. There is a reason why there high drivers are stereotypes as driving overly cautious.
I would say, "the best people" have told me that if anything you would be so paranoid on weed to not drive and even if then you would be ultra careful, versus alcohol.
Also, today we have Uber, and I think that has really helped with drunk driving a lot and with weed too.
"However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol".
from the last paragraph of the article.
that said, non regulars should not be driving high.
best way to detect impairment, would be old school road side physical/mental impairment tests. (walk this line, stand on one leg, touch your nose with your finger with your eyes closed, do a triple back flip with a full twist and stick the landing, say the alphabet, etc).
driving high and edibles though are both state sponsored problems to a degree.
don't make it illegal to light up when you get to the concert or movie or restaurant or ball game or golf course or airport, and you eliminate a lot of the need for edibles or smoking in route from the equation.
some kind of legal "tokers" area would cut down a lot on both the need for edibles or driving high.
i am not a fan of edibles, for dosage reasons that are basically non issues with smoking it. . eliminating their need as much as possible would be a big plus.
Last edited:
i have heard yr 1 projections falling short have been greatly aided by shortage of product starting off, and not having near as many dispensaries as planed in the projections up and ready to go the 1st yr.
that said, funding every state's entire wish list and miraculously curing every disease and malady known to man, should not be the litmus test as to whether something that never harmed anyone should be legal or not.
Oh, weed causes paranoia? Oh, that just sounds like the kind of substance that more people ought to be using! I must say the advocates of legalization like you are doing a great job of talking me out of it.
everyone gets along after drinking a little booze , right?
There are some that get violent when drinking and some that do dumb things under the influence of alcohol.
So if marijuana makes some people paranoid , you can use that to make weed look like it shouldn't be legalized .
But because of the violence and stupid acts booze causes, you better be asking for a return of Elliott Ness and the Untouchables to destroy the liquor supply.
On average, roughly 40 percent of inmates who are incarcerated for violent offenses were under the influence of alcohol during the time of their crime.
37 percent of sexual assaults and rapes are committed by offenders who were under the influence of alcohol.
About 27 percent of aggravated assaults are committed by individuals who have used alcohol.
An estimated two-thirds of victims suffering from violence by a current or former spouse or partner report that the perpetrator had been drinking,
Alcohol is involved in more homicides across the United States compared to other substances, like heroin and cocaine. In fact, about 40 percent of convicted murderers had used alcohol before or during the crime.
Roughly four in ten child abusers have admitted to being under the influence of alcohol during the time of the offense.
I think that list should make you more scared about alcohol being legal ,than thinking about a few paranoid pot users.
Booze tends to make people more aggressive if they have too much of it.
Pot is considered to be something that makes the user relax more than being aggressive, even if it's indulged a little too much
OK, but think about the side effects of alcohol. Think about the side effects of fatty food and soda when you are sitting in economy on a plane. We should not ban something less harmful than other substances when it has beneficial effects. Wine is good for health, we don't ban it because some people will drink it and drive or be abusive or reckless.
Yeah, I come out in favor of legalization if only because the criminalization of marijuana has proven to be as ineffective as prohibition. There are times when using laws isn't effective, and that's been true of drugs generally. But I can also understand why there is so much resistance to legalization.
So how do we keep plastics from killing all of the pelagic wildlife? (Bearing in mind that the problem is almost entirely Asian in nature)
I travel to China often. In China, if you want a plastic bag from the store, you need to pay extra. Not much, but enough that people do bring their own bags or carry there stuff in their hands. I would like a law like that here. It always makes me angry when I buy just one thing and they put it in a plastic bag.
In New Jersey we have the Politicians' cut to consider.
They and their friends will find a way to get a monopoly on some aspect of legalization first.. they will control the sources.. or the distribution points.. or both.. get their share of the profits.. THEN comes the taxes.. weed will be more expensive here than anywhere else.. you watch.. despite the fact that it is a WEED that wants to grow anywhere and everywhere.
If the pols cannot guarantee their cut... they will just keep it illegal and take their cut from the prosecution side of things as they now do.
They and their friends will find a way to get a monopoly on some aspect of legalization first.. they will control the sources.. or the distribution points.. or both.. get their share of the profits.. THEN comes the taxes.. weed will be more expensive here than anywhere else.. you watch.. despite the fact that it is a WEED that wants to grow anywhere and everywhere.
If the pols cannot guarantee their cut... they will just keep it illegal and take their cut from the prosecution side of things as they now do.
does it make you so crazy you just go throw it in the ocean?
china is a big polluter.. their paying for plastic bag thing ain't working..
Read an article today where the found plastic in deep deep sea creatures. People laugh at the plastic bag stuff, but we are royally messing up this planet.
That's not what I am saying at all. Too many people are brushing off the issues about getting high while driving. Unless there are strict rules about it like what I pointed out in my OP, and it turns out that you can get away with smoking while driving unlike drinking while driving, then there is an issue. I am not against legalization, I just want to make sure rules are past before we do that.
you can just about bet: once weed becomes fully legalized there will be tests that can spot someone who used it before or during driving.
Don't know if this claim is fully valid, but in time one will be available and soon.
< one California company claims it has made a major breakthrough in creating what some thought of as a unicorn: a marijuana breathalyzer. <
For me until there is a real and valid test (and not be something a lawyer can skoot around) I think if any weed is in the car with the exception for the trunk it should be considered the same as an open beverage container in terms of a fine and the person is immediately subject to a blood test.
Don't we have enough dope in Trenton, particularly the one sitting in the Gov's Office?
There is a May 31 deadline for passing the bill in N.J> , and, according to the New York Times, it doesn't look like either New York or New Jersey will pass a legalization bill this year.
I don't understand what you are saying. New Jersey does not have an initiative process like some states (such as California) under which voters can by petition put a measure on the ballot. And the state elections for members of the legislature happen this year and in 2021, not in 2020. There are no state offiicals on the ballot in even numbered years.
It's going to be on the ballot in 2020.
https://www.nj.com/marijuana/2019/0...medical-marijuana-clear-past-convictions.html
And that in itself will be interesting. It won't be like '91 when landslides after Florio's tax hike produced veto proof Republican majorities, but you may see a move towards the center. It also produced the gaffe of the decade when a Florio aide stated the hikes were not a big deal because they "only affected the wealthy". There was an "oops" when it was pointed out that the tax hikes kicked in for single taxpayers at $35k of income. The main beneficiary might be Sweeney.
Well, not so fast. Sweeney says he 's going to propose that the measure go on the Fall, 2020 ballot, but that doesn't guarantee that it will be on the ballot; he still needs to find the votes in both the Assembly and Senate to do that. The big news is the immediate news: efforts to pass the bill in the legislature are being dropped.
BTW, as the story says, Sweeney doesn't want to put the measure of the November 2019 ballot because he thinks it might hurt Democrats up for re-election to the legislature. He hopes it will pass in November, 2020, which will draw many more voters to the polls because it is a Presidential election.
Wasn’t this supposed to get done day 1. Haven’t the Dems been saying for years they’d get this legalized. Did they even need 1 vote from the other side?
Nope, they didn't need any R votes to pass this. The Dems in Trenton had a habit of pandering to their base and promised wacko stuff since they knew Christie would block it.
Might have been the Dems started getting complaints from the public and thought it best to hold off instead of voting on it now and work on getting more public support.
Similar threads
