Marijuana = $$$

[ThatNickGuy]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26523833

Now personally, I don't partake in marijuana. I never have and likely never will. I can't stand the smell, for one, and I have enough mental problems without worrying about whatever a substance will do to me (same reason why I don't like getting drunk).

That said, I have no problem with the legalization of it. Turns out, I have a feeling more people in government bodies will think that way soon, too. Because CHA-CHING, baby!

The US state of Colorado collected $2m (£1.2m) in taxes from newly legalised recreational marijuana businesses in January.

Colorado became the first US state to legalize the commercial sale of cannabis in 2012, and stores opened for business on 1 January 2014.

In total, 59 marijuana firms filed tax returns on an estimated $14m in sales.
Overall, the state collected a total of $3.5m in marijuana taxes if medical marijuana firms are included.
Marijuana model?

The money is earmarked for youth prevention services, substance abuse treatment, and public health, according to a plan proposed by Colorado Governor, John Hickenlooper.

Many other US states are closely watching Colorado's figures. Washington state is set to introduce legal sales later this year. Most of Colorado's tax revenues came from firms around the city of Denver.
Recently, US President Barack Obama said marijuana was no more dangerous than alcohol, while cautioning both were bad decisions. Nonetheless, he has instructed the Department of Justice to halt prosecutions of banks that do business with cannabis firms. Currently, 20 US states, as well as Washington, DC, allow for the sale of medical marijuana.

 

[Eriol]

It's the "instructed the Department of Justice to halt prosecutions of banks that do business with cannabis firms" that I have a problem with. Not the action per se, but the idea that laws can be selectively enforced. THAT'S a bad thing. It leads to political retribution being selectively enforced as well.

That your federal political machine is borked right now so you can't get more than "keep paying the elected officials" laws through is why this is probably necessary, but still. It's a bad BAD idea IMO. I'd rather them try and be enforced, and then the court invalidating the law, rather than this. That's the route it's supposed to take.

 

[GasBandit]

It's the "instructed the Department of Justice to halt prosecutions of banks that do business with cannabis firms" that I have a problem with. Not the action per se, but the idea that laws can be selectively enforced. THAT'S a bad thing. It leads to political retribution being selectively enforced as well.

That your federal political machine is borked right now so you can't get more than "keep paying the elected officials" laws through is why this is probably necessary, but still. It's a bad BAD idea IMO. I'd rather them try and be enforced, and then the court invalidating the law, rather than this. That's the route it's supposed to take.

I agree. Enforce the law or overturn it... don't leave it on the books without enforcing it. That just leaves the door open to abuse.

But there's so much wrong with the federal government, I think it's pretty much beyond repair. Needs to be scrapped and started over.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

I agree. Enforce the law or overturn it... don't leave it on the books without enforcing it. That just leaves the door open to abuse.

But there's so much wrong with the federal government, I think it's pretty much beyond repair. Needs to be scrapped and started over.

I don't know about that. I've yet to see a good reboot done well.

 

[GasBandit]

I don't know about that. I've yet to see a good reboot done well.

Fun fact is, we had to reboot it almost immediately. Our first try, the Articles of Confederation, didn't go over so well. 13 years later, we tried again, and got our current Constitution.