In principle, you may be right. Unfortunately our immoral climate gives us no good solution. In a free society where there’s social shame for substance abuse and miscreant behavior, legalization could work.
But today, legalize it and you’ll see plenty of abusers and addicts, who now have another temporary escape from their meaningless, disconnected lives. And no one around them will care.

Cargo thefts (literally stealing entire truckloads of stuff, tobacco included) is a booming industry these days. Factor in legal weed, already a multibillion dollar industry in CA, and there’s a whole new sector. Most property crimes are committed to ultimately get drugs. Legalizing and making them more socially acceptable makes them more prevalent, thus raising the property crime rates. This is simple.

As for your sarcasm about offending criminals, you cannot honestly believe that I, of all people, would be castigating you for sticking it to the folks who offend the peace and dignity of this great State. Sure, there will still be burglaries, thefts, and fencing operations if we legalizing marijuana, but I have to think that quite a few of those people who break into a house to steal a television so they could buy an eighth of weed would no longer feel the need if they could go down to the Marathon station and buy a pack of blunts for $10. If you believe that drugs are a main cause of property crimes, then you would have to believe that legalizing marijuana would decrease the incidence of those sorts of crimes. After all, how many burglaries are committed because the criminal wanted to buy a pack of Kool filter kings? Or because they thought the homeowner smoked his brand?

And the point about government needing more and more money is spot-on, too. I love Big Brother.

Further, supposing a free market legalization, where the price of marijuana were allowed to seek the equilibrium price in an arena where there is no risk of arrest for its possession, I think you would agree that its price would be substantially less than its current street price. That said, (and acknowledged), wouldn’t that hamper the drug war south of the border. My experience is that major drug dealers tend to rely on marijuana for about half their income. The rest of their wares have tended to account for the other half. If this anecdotal experience holds true, then the Mexican cartels’ income could be cut in half or thereabouts by stealing their market by making illegal marijuana no longer an issue. Sure, they could still sell it for the market price, but the costs of bringing black market marijuana into the country when risk-free marijuana is available would almost certainly be higher than the market price. In short, legalizing marijuana would likely force Mexico out of the market – presuming that government did not artificially raise the cost of marijuana (i.e. allowed the free market to operate with minimal tax burdens).

As for the idea that there is a price point below which the State loses, you forget thaqt currently the State spends untold amounts of dollars on interdiction and eradication. Even if the State were to lose money on the sale, they’d probably still be ahead. And yet, there’s no indication that the State would lose any money on taxing marijuana. Indeed, even a little piece of the pie is better than no pie at all. Especially when currently, the State is paying for several pies and the criminal are the only ones who get to eat any of it.

The pricing model raises a number of questions, not least of which is “when was the last time the government overestimated the cost of something,” meaning here’s my laying odds that after it’s legalized, state prices will be higher than street prices, and the government, which will have counted on the revenues, will instead spend more on an invigorated drug war against its competition. I’ll take all wagers.

You took my break-in question as a joke? You show your naivete more and more every day. You seriously don’t see that more of a desirable commodity (weed after legalization) will lead to more thefts, burglaries to get to it, and armed residential robberies of those who will be growing it? Again, I will simply remind you of my line of work and cite one simple example: flat screen televisions. Their proliferation caused a massive spike in burglaries here and elsewhere. Now imagine, if you will, sophisticated cartels of growers who will be first to obtain what will no doubt be expensive licenses turning down someone who comes to them with a few hundred extra pounds a week. Imagine those who are not in those cartels and who don’t have licenses just giving up their criminal ways because, “oh well, I can’t legally sell it and even though it will be easy pickings, I guess I’ll go find a job driving a forklift now.” We’re talking about a multi-billion dollar industry in California alone. Yeah, I was joking. It’s just retarded to think that more of something will lead to more theft, burglary and robbery to get that something. Just hysterical. Especially when there is still going to be a black market available just a Fed-Ex, DHL, or UPS office away. Because we never get any pot from California here in the Midwest. And I’m sure we won’t get even more (most of it stolen) once you guys legalize it. Nope, I must be batshit, out-of-my-mind crazy.

As to Humboldt, Mendocino, and other places where the business has become the main reason for trade, either directly or indirectly, why don’t you call the sheriff’s offices up there and ask them if they’ve seen an uptick in violent and other crimes, and an outflow of professionals and others not involved with the drug trade. I know some cops out there and I know people who aren’t there anymore. I also recommend watching CNBC’s documentary “Marijuana Inc.” (You can watch it free on their site or at Hulu.) Those people don’t consider it a joke, believe me. I don’t need to elaborate on what I think is so increasingly horrible about those communities. The burden of proof isn’t on me. They already legalized it up there and they’re reaping the consequences. If you want to think there aren’t any that’s your business. I’m not the one advocating the legalization of it. You are. We are all responsible for the consequences we either intend or should have foreseen when we advocated a position. You can do your own due diligence.

Your attempt at appealing to states’ rights was amusing.

There is already taxation of the proprietors of the dispensaries which operate legally in California. There may not be direct sales taxation yet, but if I could just ask you again why California’s government should be given more money, I’d appreciate an answer that is consistent with your “states’ rights, individual liberty” limited government conservatism. Unless of course your limited government conservatism is a facade for libertarianism. But then, that would be inconsistent with your strident advocacy for the perpetual wars the big-government liberals in the current and past three administrations have been fighting. So, I’m still confused, Bill. Which are you? And why give Sacramento more money to play with? I haven’t even mentioned the rising energy costs associated with the grows. But I’m sure the good folks getting their licenses will just rely on the sun, right?

First, my comment was in two paragraphs. The first dealing only with the California proposed model and the second on more open legalization without the same regulations California is discussing.

You question regarding competition and pricing is legitimate: under the California model, the price is set by the state (figures floating around are at about half of street cost) and there is no storefront competition as only the state my sell through the stores.

Water supply in California is a serious concern. But which crop is grown and by whom is not the government’s business. I say let the free market handle that.

Your break-in question is a joke, I assume.

Your question regarding counties is the same…a joke I presume. If not, please elaborate on what you think is so horrible about these places.

The president has called off the DEA on matters of marijuana legalized under state laws. But you are correct; another administration could force the DEA back on the case. Still, this small step (California legalization) for increased revenue, let alone state’s rights and individual liberty is worth taking.

The prohibition against private sales will be (as it already is) hard to enforce. And yes, it is hypocritical in the extreme. But it is this way with alcohol in many states (again, think ABC stores) so it is not with out precedent.

Cafe sales are not currently taxed in California as they are supposed to be nonprofit collectives. Applying any tax at all would raise more revenue that we have on it now.

You’re right; the Federal government should not waste money attempting to enforce impossible marijuana laws. It should stay out of the issue and leave it up to the states to decide its legality.

Help me understand how the water supply and so forth will not be affected by the massive increases in the use of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc. required for a successful crop.

Help me understand how crime will go down when you have so many more targets for violent robbers/burglars more than willing to break in to the increasing number of houses and/or gardens which will be producing these crops (so they can then sell it to the state-owned stores or just continue their tax-free black market).

Help me understand how more and more of California will escape the exceedingly disturbing fate of Humboldt, Mendocino, and other counties where it is already de facto if not de jure legalized.

Help me understand what the state is going to tell Washington when the DEA continues its operations against the bigger targets despite Sacramento’s actions.

Help me understand how the prohibition of private sales is going to work, and how it isn’t hypocritical in the extreme.

Help me understand how the state is going to rake in that much more in marijuana-based revenues than it already does through the “medical” marijuana cafes and “pharmacy” sales, especially when they will inevitably start spending more to continue the war against their black-market competition. There is presumably a price-point below which the state can’t sell without negating the revenue factor, and we know there are thousands upon thousands who already don’t care about the illegality of the enterprise and will continue to undercut the government.

Help me understand how more government money isn’t going to be spent trying to intercept shipments out of the “legal” California market to the rest of the United States when there will be more people having their now-legal 25×25 grows.

Your contention that the industry is currently run by bad men so legalizing it is ridiculous seems fair enough on its face but history tells us different. The alcohol industry was run by equally bad men (some from Canada, the horror!) during prohibition and once legalized it was taken over by legitimate business. The infrastructure is already here: farms, tobacco corporations, and even non-violent growers in Northern California, Oregon, Kentucky, etc…. Competition would drive prices way down, supply up and your Mexican cartels, I suspect, would re-focus on cocaine and other illegal, and thus black-market profitable, drugs.