As I write this, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco has introduced the Marijuana Control, Regulation And Education Bill, or California Assembly Bill 390. This proposal, should it pass, would allow for the regulation and taxation of marijuana, while also allowing those 21 and over to grow, buy, or use the plant for recreational purposes.

If the bill passes, California would be the first state in the union to legalise marijuana for recreational use, though possessing the plant for any purpose is still illegal under federal statutes.

Ammiano believes that the bill, if passed, could generate up to a billion dollars for the state at a time when the latest economic depression is causing state revenue to decline. This money could be put to good use, as it could go back into the state for drug education and other public services.

The bill has some backing in some rather unexpected places. Take for instance, San Francisco sheriff Michael Hennessey. Hennessey, when asked about the bill, said that the idea "should be the subject of legislative and public debate".

Betty Yee is the chairperson of California's Board of Equalisation, which collects taxes in the state. She also believes that the bill would be good for California. An extensive analysis by her agency concluded that the bill if passed, would bring in $1.3 billon in tax revenues alone, along with a $50-an-ounce levy on retail sales. The analysis concludes that, if passed, street value of marijuana would drop by 50%

One of the bill's biggest supporters is Orange County Superior Court Judge James Grey. Grey, a longtime supporter of marijuana legalisation believes that on top of the increased revenue, the state could also save money in the long run, due to the ceasing of arrests, prosecution, an inprisonment of non-violent offenders. Grey says, "We couldn't make this drug any more available if we tried. Not only do we have those problems, along with glamorizing it by making it illegal, but we also have the crime and corruption that go along with it." He adds, "Unfortunately, every society in the history of mankind has had some form of mind-altering, sometimes addictive substances to use, to misuse, abuse or get addicted to. Get used to it. They're here to stay. So let's try to reduce those harms, and right now we couldn't do it worse if we tried."

It also appears as though the voting public of California also agree with the bill. An informal poll done by KCRA-TV asked 8.524 Californians the question, "Should marijuana be legalised and taxed for those 21 and over?" 6,887 people (81%) said yes, while 1,637 said no. CNN, in reporting on this story, also held a poll. The CNN poll showed that 95% of those polled were in favour of legalisaing marijuana.

Of course, with any such proposal of this nature one can find more than a few detractors.

While spokespersons for the Drug Enforcement Agency were tight-lipped regarding the subject, a White House official pointed to a section of the Obama Transition Team's blog which states the president "is not in favour of the legalisation of marijuana"

John Lovell, a lobbyist representing the California Peace Officers' Association, California Police Chiefs Association and California Narcotic Officers' Association, says "The last thing our society needs is yet more legal intoxicants. We've got enough social problems now when people aren't in charge of all five of their senses."

So, my question to you all: What do you think? Should such a measure be allowed to pass? List reasons why you are either for or against such a thing. Can you see any benefits to such a law? And what would the pitfalls be in your estimation.

I will let this topic stew a few days before I chime in with my opinion. I'm still researching

I don't use drugs, but up here marijuana is nearly legal already. The jobs that require people to be drug free do regular drug tests (like the unions for example). I think it's just the fact that it's dark most of the year though, so it keeps the suicide and homicide levels down. It's just a slap on the wrist in court - unless you have a bunch (like those huge bags of pot in Super Troopers) or if you're caught selling it, then it's a bit of jail time.

I believe it should vary state to state rather than on a federal level. Alcohol is regulated state to state. Where I work, we have a unique contract the the Oregon Liquor Control Commission where we deliever the hard liquor to different cities.

I believe 100% that it should be legalized, with restrictions of course. Like Z said, alcohol laws are depending on state to state, though, I think it would be a great idea to legalize it. Now, many people say, "You just say that because you are probably a stoner." But no, I'm not. I don't like the smell, the taste, or the effect.

However, if it IS legalized, I can assure you that our economic slump will slowly rise back where it's supposed to be, because people will be buying that stuff up faster than...well, weed. It's a great plant, and every bit of it can be used in one form or another. Not just for recreational use, but also medical. It can be used as a spice, to make clothing, a form of trade. It replaces trees by nearly a third in every way, including the production of oxygen.

There's a book that will basically sum it all up. If you are interested, it's called The Emperor Wears No Clothes. It's really fascinating. Or, as a wise man once put it, "I propose that we plant these seeds and I know what your thinkin' "Illegal! Illegal!" but the value of purple sticky punch goes way beyond just tokin' it!" --- Pauly Shore (Bio-Dome)

One problem though. I don't think they can actually tax it. Cigarettes can be taxed because the tobacco only grows in certains conditions. Weed can grow nearly anywhere...without actual sunlight, and little watering. In a closet, under stairs, in a car trunk. All you need is a UV Light, and you're high flying.

So, do I think it should be legal? Yes...
Do I think they can tax it? No...
Do I think they WILL make it legal? No...

You know... they should tax it. Think of the rev that can go to schools or the enviorment.

I know. I REALLY wish they would, though, like I stated, I don't really think they can. It's not an imported good, and the only other way they could tax it is if it's sold in stores through manufacturers.

If only licensed growers could sell, then anyone caught growing without a license could easily still get people in trouble legally. The government would still be able to tax the marijuana crops while maintaining it's frowning face upon drugs. I think it would wind up being on the same level as bootlegging. In order to make hard liquor (it requires a distillery) you have to have a special license. If you are caught without the license that you get sent to jail.

ThisGuy - It doesn't have to be an imported good. Look at stamps. That's simply the government taxing our mail. Stamps were originally a temporary tax to fund the US in its first stages. Now we're going to see an upcoming $0.49 stamp really soon.

No... It shouldn't be legalized... If we let one drug become legal then that will encourage people to try and make others legal... It isn't worth the Future battles... Plus it is disgusting...

Personally, I don't like marijuana. But that doesn't mean I think others who smoke it and enjoy it should be deemed criminals when people who do it do not cause harm to society. Where-as there are some people who actually need it for medical treatment, and there are few states that actually prescribe it. Police should be using their time to focus on taking criminals who are causing harm to society. When they can tax marijuana and it can possibly do wonders for the economy.

There is one possible disadvantage of the legalization of marijuana that I am looking in to. There is some debate on whether or not it can actually affect a person's ability to drive. Or, unsure if that's depending on how much someone smoked, or ate it (if it was like one of those special brownies you see on That 70's Show, or that space cake from Deuce Bigalo: European Gigalo). Anyway, if it can affect a person's disability to drive, and someone is pulled over by a cop while high on marijuana, the drug tests don't bring back results right away like they do with alcohol. So it puts the police in an awkward situation of whether or not to arrest a person for suspicion or keep them in custody for a certain amount of time when they may actually be innocent. I'm not too informed on this, I'm just stating some of what I've heard.

I am not an advocate of marijuana use, but I feel that resources used on fighting marijuana use could be better used in other areas of law enforcement -- in particular against crimes where people are actually hurting other people (murder, rape, human trafficking, etc.) Legalization and regulation would also put a dent in illegal drug trade and it's associated crimes. Also, taxing it could provide additional revenue for law enforcement or other positive uses (as Zetaman mentioned above).

Here's an link some may find of interest:
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

I'm against legalization of pot, because I think it it harmful to people, based on the scientific data that I have.

All the scientific studies I have seen all say the same thing, that it hurts brain cells or otherwise impairs peoples abilities. While this in the end also helps people in pain because with damaged brain cells the pain receptors that fire are not heard by the brain stem because of the impaired mental ability that follows use of the drug, that is not worth killing off peoples ability to think.

I do think that they should study it more, use what they can find out to find ways if using the plants in legitimate drugs that can help people, but in the raw plant form people are forced to smoke it, and smoking is a terrible way to kill your lungs, breath in the millions of poisons it contains, and slowly kill yourself and others from second hand smoke.

Sure it may be your choice, but others may not want to die of lung cancer from second hand smoke. I have lost friends and family to second hand smoke cancer, so this is a very personal issue for me.

That's a very good point, Raven. I didn't think about it like that, though, I still think it would be nearly impossible to accomplish. As for MrRavenBlade, I agree that smoking is not the best way, as it is still smoke, but there are other ways to go about it, such as eating it. Sure, you are still getting the same toxins, but it's not effecting anyone.

And do I think they should allow it in bars, restaurants, or even the streets? No. But I don't see the harm in lighting one up inside the comfort of your own home. That is also to say that I don't believe people should be able to smoke in a household with children (that would be child abuse).

I also agree that it could prove an interesting predicament with the police. I believe smoking DOES affect your driving because it slows down your reaction time, depth perception, and even warps reality around you. But you have to take into consideration that the police are granted the right to arrest upon suspicion.

Misjudgment can result, which could lead to possible lawsuit, right? Not so much. If you are driving erratically, that is an offense, and believe it or not, an officer is allowed to arrest you (handcuffs and all) for going over the speed limit. Sure, he can say he SUSPECTS you of being under the influence, but that doesn't necessarily have to be his reason for arrest.

A test similar to a Roadside Sobriety Test would prove a useful tool. When stoned, your balance is GREATLY affected, hence the reason skateboarders aren't commonly stoners. Speech is often slurred, mumblings and sometimes drooling. Also, the STRONG ass smell should give it away nicely...not to mention the fact the person will be trying to get the officer's bag of chips.

Overall, I say there is no way to 100% prove someone is high, but there's also no 100% way to prove someone is drunk, or has a gun, or just raped someone. It's all based on the officer's judgment. I know many stoners, and most are actually VERY good people, some even being cops themselves. So, I clarify that I don't see anything wrong with blazing up in the security and comfort of your own home.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying it's okay as long as you don't get caught. I was saying that I think it should be treated the same way as drunk driving. I don't believe anyone under the influence of ANYTHING (including most over the counter medicines) should be driving. And I wasn't saying that smoking in a house while kids weren't -around- was okay. I was saying that childless people should be able to if they'd like. I agree fully that it would be considered Child Abuse.

However, I do disagree that you can prove 100% that a man has a gun. He might be concealing it. And I disagree that you can prove 100% that he raped a woman, because, what if he wore a condom, or even so, what if the woman was his wife he'd just dumped for cheating [though having sex with her last night].

And I don't feel the same as you do when it comes to the police officer. A nurse vows to never commit malpractice, however, if a man's heart stops beating at a restaurant, do you really think she'd skip the use of the defibrillator? No, she'd go against everything the rules tell her, and she'd save the man.

Do I think it's wrong of him to do? Yes. But you know what....he's only a cop when he's on the clock. Otherwise, he's just human, and his decisions should rest with him...and only him. I didn't mean to offend, honestly. I am just stating my opinion on the matter.

Dude, that is EXACTLY what I was saying about weed being treated the same way as DUI. Thank you Crimson.

And just to clear one thing up...and my final thing to clear up (because after this, I have nothing more to say to MrRavenBlade)...if the woman was his [ex]wife, and he just had sex with her the night before, there's a good chance his skin is under her fingernails, and there's a good chance his pubes are in her underwear. There's also a good chance his semen is all up in there, and that there may also be blood shed. Some people get their kooks off that way. I will admit that I don't know shit about forensics, but the fact that you think you know everything there is to need to know is mindboggling, and straight up ignorant.

Also, you cannot prove 100% a man has a gun. If you were walking up a dark road, and you heard a gun shot...but decided to keep walking, then you seen a man walking towards you...would you automatically assume she has a gun (judging that there's no one around). Probably. And if that's the case, just you and him on the sidewalk, can you prove he has a gun?

I can see certain truths behind what you are saying, and I have also changed my views on one thing particularly, but you have got to open your mind up a little more passed the box you keep it in, because not everything you believe is truth. You are human just as I am, and all humans make mistakes.

This is probably where you will say something along the lines of, "And you make more mistakes than many, NG." or "And another mistake added to the board is you assuming to know what I will say," but dude...it's a friggin' forum with people all around the world on it. It's only natural to have differences in opinion, and just because mine differs from yours isn't a reason to try to completely destroy any other way of thinking than your own.

And Crimson Fist, I don't know if you were asking me or Mr.RavenBlade that question, but from MY PERSONAL OPINION, I think if one or the other had to be banned while the other being legal, I would choose alcohol to be illegal. It's a physical addiction (weed is a mental which can be ignored---unless people are just DYING to prove me wrong---again). It alters your personality much more than marijuana, causing you to become violent and irrational (with exceptions in both directions, of course). And it poisons the people around them by many different ways (much like pot poisons through second hand smoke).

Folks, everyone has a different view and opinions. They are not meant to be a attack on character. Let's refrain from taking those points as insults on you as a person.