CA Governor Schwarzenegger Looks to Illegal Drugs for Tax Revenue

Call it Grass, Weed, Pot, Mary Jane, Dope, or Bud; It's a Leaf and Looks Good to the Governator for Revenue Generation.

Sylvia Cochran
The California budget crisis continues on without abatement and illegal drugs are now in the crosshairs of cash strapped legislators. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he would look at marijuana legislation as a potential means for tax revenue. Is this a shortsighted move?

Illegal Drugs in the News

When Michael Phelps took a bong hit, the picture led to unsuccessful press negotiations, an apology, sanctions, and a loss of endorsements. In contrast, when San Francisco Democrat Tom Ammiano drafted a California marijuana bill, he was hailed as a visionary who might be able to use illegal drugs and put up to $50 per ounce of marijuana into the state's coffers.

Even President Obama weighed in on legalization of illegal drugs - specifically the legalization of marijuana - and the Obama marijuana position is a resounding "no" to making this illegal drug legal. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is not yet on the illegal drugs legalization bandwagon, but, according to the Christian Science Monitor, he is making overtures that he is ready to listen and discuss the legalization and taxation of marijuana.

Illegal Drugs Status of Marijuana

The United States Drug Enforcement Administration classifies marijuana as a schedule one illegal drug, asserting that it possessed a heightened possibility of abuse.

Will Legalization of Illegal Drugs Show California the Money?

It may not be the solution to California's budget woes, but it would be more than a drop in the bucket. Estimates suggest that the legalization of marijuana and its taxation could add up to $1.3 billion to the state's strapped budget.

The law of unintended consequences also applies when it comes to illegal drugs and their legalization. For example, if marijuana were made legal in California, sellers and users would no longer be subject to prosecution (at taxpayer cost) and incarceration (also at taxpayer expense); moreover, the tax revenue generated by marijuana sellers and users as they pursue their regular FICA generating jobs remains preserved.

On the flipside, a new government agency or at least office dedicated to overseeing the sale and taxation of marijuana would have to be created. Children would have to be protected from (for them) illegal drugs that would then be so much easier to obtain. Could it be that the California governmental structure might just eat up whatever profits the legalization and taxation of marijuana would yield?

Moreover, the fact that smoking pot and smoking tobacco lead to health problems is undisputed. Will California simply shoot itself in the foot by legalizing marijuana and reaping tax benefits on the front end, while paying out health related costs on the back end?

Sources

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1441313/michael_phelps_bong_hit_story_reveals.html; http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1510881/california_marijuana_bill_proposes.html; http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1602072/examining_the_obama_marijuana_position.html; http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/06/legalize-marijuana-schwarzenegger-says-lets-debate-it/; http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/marijuana.html

Published by Sylvia Cochran - Featured Contributor in Automotive, Politics, Travel and Lifestyle

Sylvia Cochran works out of sunny Southern California and has been freelance writing -- full-time -- since 2005. SEO-optimized Internet copy includes news analysis, political Op/Ed and parenting as well as a...   View profile

7 Comments

Post a Comment
  • ned 7/31/2009

    Marijuana should be legalized. Its a win win for the government. We would save money on not looking for drug dealers selling weed. And make money on taxing what is sold legally. Besides, it is safer to smoke marijuana than is is to drink or smoke cigarettes. There are more cases of lung cancer from cigarettes, and liver problems and drunk drives killing people. this way people would not be affraid of buying bad drugs, if bought at a store.

  • Jordan 6/11/2009

    They better legalize it. I think that its bullshit that they would even consider tax dollars of catching criminals. They pay more on stopping marijuana use then the government makes. Stop this stupid war on drugs everyone needs to stand up and show your voice!

  • Agnes Farside 5/8/2009

    I agree with Sheryl.

  • Iconoclast421 5/8/2009

    Marijuana criminalization is an economic stimulus that is roughly equivalent to about $10 dollars per joint. Yes per joint. When you add up all the contributions the drug war makes to GDP, that's about what it comes down to, being conservative. Dont forget that without the marijuana aspect of the drug war, there would simply be no way to justify the massive funding to fight a war on cocaine/crack/meth. They need that pot in there to disguise all the graft. It comes out to at least $10 a joint.

    The US consumes about 500 million joints each week. That is 2.5 billion dollars a week. Or about $130 billion a year. (Plus or minus 30 billion) The drug war adds much more than this to GDP, possibly as much as 10 times more. So like I said I'm being conservative with the $10 joint estimate. Without marijuana, I guarantee that the drug war would contribute at least $130 billion per year less to the GDP. That is why the war on pot cannot end until America ends, or rather goes through fundamenta

  • Carol Bengle Gilbert 5/7/2009

    What about the folks using it for medical treatment? It would be horrible to tax them for a drug they use for relief from medical ailments. This is a bad policy idea.

  • Marzell Holmes 5/7/2009

    The only pathetic thing here is that anyone continues to think that our current drug policy works. It criminalizes non-violent, harmless pot smokers and has created a multi-billion dollar black market economy. There is NO reason that alcohol, which is much more physically harmful than marijuana, should be legal, while pot is not. Well, other than the billions that the DEA, DARE, and other anti-drug crusaders rake in each year, and are reluctant to give up...even in the face of their abject failure.

  • Sheryl Young 5/7/2009

    This is pathetic. Not your article - but Arnold's position! And I just read somewhere that Obama wants softer sentence on crack dealers. Hey, why not? Don't you know how much revenue drugs bring into the economy?

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.