Would Legalized Pot Threaten California's Economy?
Of course legalizing pot would threaten California's economy.
But not how you think?
Legalizing pot could give the California economy a kick start on the road to economic recovery. Currently pot sells for outrageous amounts of money. So very few people are willing to risk the expense and legal hassles to produce pot. If you legalize pot growing and sales and smoking, then more people would start businesses to grow and sell pot. This would cause the cost of production and distribution to drop to the point that a pack of pot cigarettes might not cost much more than a pack of tobacco cigarettes. At which point a lot more people would be willing to smoke pot. It could be taxed the same way tobacco cigarettes and alcohol are taxed. So not only would legalizing pot start California on the road to economic recovery, but the vast amount of additional taxes that could be collected by the state, might even be enough to prevent the State of California from going bankrupt.
Fortunately, the California politicians know better than to offend the socialists, the "green movement" and the "Global Warming" faithful who fund their election campaigns. Fortunately, the California politicians know better than to do anything that might cause the creation of new businesses or delay the increase in taxes on the
That is how government works.
This is exactly like worrying over whether ending Prohibition would hurt the profits of gangsters and speakeasies.
ReplyDeleteI do believe this is the first time I've seen an economic argument that used the "fruit of the poisoned tree" as if it were a GOOD thing.
This is exactly like worrying over whether ending Prohibition would hurt the profits of gangsters and speakeasies.
ReplyDeleteI do believe this is the first time I've seen an economic argument that used the "fruit of the poisoned tree" as if it were a GOOD thing.
This is exactly like worrying over whether ending Prohibition would hurt the profits of gangsters and speakeasies.
ReplyDeleteI do believe this is the first time I've seen an economic argument that used the "fruit of the poisoned tree" as if it were a GOOD thing.