<p>Ranking of life #1) Lady Gaga #2) Pot and meh 19 failed but wtv didn’t stop me from having some last night after my midterm.</p>
<p>"jonnosferatu–it’s an issue of principle. I don’t really mind the dopers. They can do as they please. If partaking in drugs is their thing, so be it.</p>
<p>What I take issue with is how the initiative was constructed. Politicians saw this as an opportunity to tax something else and gain another stream of revenue. I’m not going to vote to give them more funds when they’ve shown time and time again that they’ll just mismanage then and institute another deficit building program that the state does not need.</p>
<p>Right now, more than anything, this state needs to learn fiscal discipline. Without it, we’re going bankrupt. Continually feeding the politicians money and, essentially, enabling them is killing the state.</p>
<p>If marijuana legalization were to come back up on the ballot without the tax provision, I’d likely vote yes because, as I said, I don’t care what the dopers do. If getting high makes them happy, good for them. It’s their life. What I will not do though is abandon my principles and give the state another taxable item and an additional stream of finds to **** away. "</p>
<p>As someone who considers themselves somewhat fiscally conservative, I would agree with this sentiment most of the time. But money is money, no matter if it’s coming from pot, coffee, or alcohol. Letting the state learn its lesson about useless spending is one thing, but in the volatile economic climate, taking advantage of almost guaranteed money is priority. The state is already bankrupt and this measure would have provided support to the financial situation (albeit small). We all know how easy it is to buy marijuana and we all know how little anyone really cares about people using it (it’s on a ballet for gods sake), if revenue can be made from the stoners who will get the pot anyway, why not exploit it?</p>
<p>hippo50 poses an interesting argument, in fact one of the best I’ve heard for no on 19. However, I just ask the question: which is more important: civil liberties or responsible government?</p>
<p>If someone likes to dope off, isn’t the government being oppressive by not allowing them to do so?</p>
<p>Sure, there’s the medical marijuana license, but you have to go out and actively obtain one. Yeah, you need a BS excuse, but anything works. In fact, I’ve had friends take 16 units in an engineering major and then complain about “stress.” However, that’s not the point. Doesn’t it seem absurd that if you just feel like lighting up, you could be fined if you do it in front of an officer who hates you?</p>
<p>I’d rather have a bankrupt government that’s quadrillions of dollars in debt where I get to do what I want instead of an oppressive one that keeps things stable and well-managed.</p>
<p>Ideally, you should get both liberities and a responsible government, but when you can’t get both, prioritize.</p>
<p>Not to mention, aren’t taxes routinely used to discourage people from doing certain activites? Eg. discouraging alcohol consumption, smoking, driving, aristocracy.</p>
<p>“Politicians saw this as an opportunity to tax something else and gain another stream of revenue. I’m not going to vote to give them more funds when they’ve shown time and time again that they’ll just mismanage then and institute another deficit building program that the state does not need.”</p>
<p>Well, obviously the government is going to tax a commodity when it’s legalized as opposed to only sold on the black market. Would you rather have the profits going into our public coffers or into the hands of black market drug dealers?</p>
<p>Like I said, I’ve no problem legalizing it–it’s the taxation I take issue with. If it were to come up on the ballot just for legalization with out the tax provision, I’d vote yes. If people want to do it, let them do it. It’s their life. To digress, I take the same stance with abortion. I do not support it and I really don’t think state funds should be allocated towards it. If people want or need to have an abortion though, that option should be there for them. Who am I to say no? It’s their life, they can make the decisions. </p>
<p>The state needs to show some restraint in it’s spending. They need to make cuts in programs and services, that’s a reality. In my mind, feeding them more money by giving them another taxable item just further enables them to push off the tough decisions for another day. </p>
<p>California is already among, if not the highest, taxed state in the union. When is enough enough? How can these other states remain solvent and yet CA, one of the largest and most vibrant economies in the world, is struggling? They need to learn restraint. They need to learn fiscal discipline. Taking away or not enabling them to earn income through additional means of taxation is the right step in that direction, IMO.</p>
<p>hippo50 poses an interesting argument, in fact one of the best I’ve heard for no on 19. However, I just ask the question: which is more important: civil liberties or responsible government?</p>
<p>The difference is that government responsibility takes much more time to implement, and the civil liberty in this case is already essentially present as of January. I’m not switching sides here, but the point stands.</p>
<p>Not to mention, aren’t taxes routinely used to discourage people from doing certain activites? Eg. discouraging alcohol consumption, smoking, driving, aristocracy.</p>
<p>I don’t consider this a valid reason for taxation. The government’s job ends at stating its position and distributing information (with available source documentation) for why it has that position. This isn’t to say that the taxes aren’t valid - if the government needs money to fund a new program, that money has to come from somewhere - but I don’t believe that the (alleged, albeit generally verified) collateral benefit should be part of the argument for or against the tax being levied.</p>
<p>hippo, I get what you’re saying, but do you really think that if prop 19 passed Sacramento would become even MORE irresponsible than it already is? Do you think that now, since prop 19 didn’t pass, California’s gov’t will clean up its act? I really don’t see that happening.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it’s a bit ridiculous to deny our state funds JUST to teach politicians a lesson (a lesson, I might add, I’m not convinced they can learn–esp. not just from prop 19 failing). Look, the politicians will squander some of that tax revenue but don’t you think SOME of that money will go to necessary services?</p>
<p>It’s probably not possible for them to become more irresponsible. Allowing them further funds certainly doesn’t make them more responsible though, quite the oposite, IMO. If it takes bankruptcy to change their ways, so be it.</p>
<p>“Like I said, I’ve no problem legalizing it–it’s the taxation I take issue with. If it were to come up on the ballot just for legalization with out the tax provision, I’d vote yes.”</p>
<p>Yes, let’s legalize a substance for sale but leave it tax-free, because everything else for sale is tax-free too right?</p>
<p>Don’t you see your error in reasoning here? If it’s legalized, it’s going to be taxed. Furthermore, the prop doesn’t even have any stipulations for it to be taxed. It only <em>allows</em> local governments to impose taxes to raise revenue.</p>
<p>Lastly, if you’re so much against pointless government spending, wouldn’t legalizing weed result in billions of dollars saved on non-violent inmates?</p>
<p>California may have a problem using its money wisely, but taking away an easy source of revenue that will at the same time increase civil liberties is not the way to do it.</p>
<p>I don’t believe it was ever going to be taxed at a “normal” rate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>exactly. thank god i didn’t have to spend 10 minutes articulating something so obvious.</p>