Economics Questions

Re: A. B. 390

Telpeurion — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:15:24 GMT

Does this mean other states are going to set up even more customs offices along borders?

Re: A. B. 390

E. R. Olovetto — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:21:59 GMT

Joe:

I also sometimes hear from liberty circles that the real goal should be full decriminalization instead of legalization.

A "real goal" would be punishing all those who pursued such "victimless crimes".

Re: A. B. 390

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:41:10 GMT

Joe:

I think one thing that will be interesting to look at is will employers continue to test for marijuana? Were they only testing to see if their potential employees were "law abiding" or were they actually concerned about marijuana use?

This was a question which popped up last night. Drug testing, currently, is very ineffective. Employers usually do it because there is a lot of pressure from "drug free" associations (this information is from that professor who spoke). The comment I directed towards the girl that asked it was that employers are likely to continue drug tests for some time. It will change over time; nothing will come immediately. Besides, there are more effective ways to know whether or not you are high at work. They don't test for alcohol every day you work, because it's visible. It's pretty obvious when one is baked, too. I see it all the time where I work, I'm just not a supervisor so I don't care.

Re: A. B. 390

Joe — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:06:12 GMT

I also sometimes hear from liberty circles that the real goal should be full decriminalization instead of legalization.

If legalized and regulated, would it be legal to grow your own plants? I guess you would probably need some kind of permit. Can you currently grow tobacco plants in your back yard if you wanted to?

Re: A. B. 390

Joe — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:01:08 GMT

Maybe I am just not imaginative enough, but what could the possible dangers be of relegalizing too quickly?

I think one thing that will be interesting to look at is will employers continue to test for marijuana? Were they only testing to see if their potential employees were "law abiding" or were they actually concerned about marijuana use?

Re: A. B. 390

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:53:43 GMT

TelfordUS:

Last night, the California Assembly voted 4 to 3 to propose the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act, which fully legalizes the use/possession/sale of marijuana in the state of California. This is a big step towards the end of marijuana prohibition and a victory for the free market. But assuming marijuana does become legalized, many have argued on how this change should come about.

I come to you with this question: how rapid should the relegalization of marijuana be? Should it be a complete and immediate repeal, or a gradual and secure approach? What are the economic repercussions of each?

I went to a libertarian club meeting at UCSD last night, and this was actually the topic. The guest speaker was a lawyer/professor from the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, here in San Diego. Like you allude to, this is a step. And, I should remind everybody that the word "regulation" is misused. Right now, marijuana is completely regulated; i.e. prohibited. Even if marijuana is legalized, taxed and regulated, it will be comparatively less regulated than it is now. In any case, the thing has to go up for a vote in June or November (whenever it is) anyways, and even if it passes it then becomes a local (municipal) matter, as far as I know.

Change will come slowly. How is should be will be different from how it will actually be.

Re: A. B. 390

CrazyCoot — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:28:26 GMT

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/12/BA191BH4AR.DTL&tsp=1

Here's a link to the bill. Maybe it'll pass, but that remains to be seen.

Re: A. B. 390

CrazyCoot — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:24:17 GMT

Link please. And the dangers of legalization are over-regulation and over-taxation. I could see even stricter penalties for blackmarket selling and purchasing of marijuana than currently exist.

Re: A. B. 390

Sieben — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:20:20 GMT

Why not test the rate at which we can deregulate? Do it slowly at first, and see how the market reacts. If everything is fine then continue and go a little faster. Continue going faster until the market looks like it can't react fast enough to changing conditions. This holds for all abolition of government, not just mj ;)

Re: A. B. 390

Bogdan — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:42:50 GMT

I don't see reasons, why it shouldn't be done immediately? To help police (will they survive after loosing that kind of revenue?Awful!)?

A. B. 390

TelfordUS — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:27:53 GMT

Last night, the California Assembly voted 4 to 3 to propose the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act, which fully legalizes the use/possession/sale of marijuana in the state of California. This is a big step towards the end of marijuana prohibition and a victory for the free market. But assuming marijuana does become legalized, many have argued on how this change should come about.

I come to you with this question: how rapid should the relegalization of marijuana be? Should it be a complete and immediate repeal, or a gradual and secure approach? What are the economic repercussions of each?