Colorado potheads not out of the woods yet.

[David]

See: prohibition.

Don't get it.

[bcoop]

Nope, not unless you retroactively did it for every criminal in the country.

Wat?

[CJ-95GT]

I still see companies not hiring people for medicinal M/J use even if it became legal. I think Baylor doesn't hire people that smoke cigs mainly due to the H/C cost. This is another trickle effect if m/j becomes legal. Most people are against smoking cigs due to health risk. I don't see m/j use being any different since smoking is smoking.

[David]

Wat?

The govt isn't going to release prisoners or change criminal histories all the sudden just because something become legal that was illegal when the individual was arrested/charged/convicted/deferred.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Don't get it.

History repeats itself. While booze was legal, then illegal, then legal again, pot legalization could be attributed in the same way. The government went from collecting money from taxes on booze, to spending money fighting it plus the crime that occured, to making taxes off of booze again.

Read up on it, it was a pretty interesting time, and historically set a precident for legalizing weed, in a way.

There is way more to read up on, but wiki has a decent summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibi..._United_States

[David]

I understand prohibition, but was confused on how it related to tax revenue vs seizure/forfeitures.

[Baron Von Crowder]

I understand prohibition, but was confused on how it related to tax revenue vs seizure/forfeitures.

are you still confused?

[David]

I'm just wondering what the tax revenue generated would be vs money from seizure/forfeitures. Does money incoming from taxation outweigh money coming in from seizure/forfeiture?

[Baron Von Crowder]

I'm just wondering what the tax revenue generated would be vs money from seizure/forfeitures. Does money incoming from taxation outweigh money coming in from seizure/forfeiture?

Im 100% sure that the money spent every year on enforcing, housing, etc of weed realated law breakers far excedes the dollars seized, but I have no way to back that up.

Think about it this way, If we spend a billion dollars this year fighting "pot criminals" now, but next year it is all legal, and taxed like booze or tobacco, we would stop spending that billion, and start raking in the tax dollars.

[racrguy]

The govt isn't going to release prisoners or change criminal histories all the sudden just because something become legal that was illegal when the individual was arrested/charged/convicted/deferred.

Work on that.

[David]

Im 100% sure that the money spent every year on enforcing, housing, etc of weed realated law breakers far excedes the dollars seized, but I have no way to back that up.

Think about it this way, If we spend a billion dollars this year fighting "pot criminals" now, but next year it is all legal, and taxed like booze or tobacco, we would stop spending that billion, and start raking in the tax dollars.

Most people that get popped for pot get deferred and the counties generate revenue from fines/court costs and you're paying cops whether they're doing DWIs, burglaries, or traffic stops.

I'm sure we spend far more than what they take in also. More or less just curious.

[03trubluGT]

I saw an outstanding sign posted on the billboard of "The Gold Standard" on West 7th and Carroll.

Those old heads will remember the place as "7th Haven".

A fine is a tax for doing something wrong.

A tax is a fine for doing something right.

[mustang_revival]

Until they can find a way to give a DUI for being under the influence of pot, it won't be legal.

There is already and being used in commi-fornia.

A mouth swab during a traffic stop that detects use in the last -/+ 8 hours

[bcoop]

There is already and being used in commi-fornia.

A mouth swab during a traffic stop that detects use in the last -/+ 8 hours

It will have to be something more accurate than that.

[mustang_revival]

It will have to be something more accurate than that.

Perhaps... I only know what they have been reporting on

EDIT - this would be a blood test, so most likely used only during the case of very obvious DUI or a wreck where there is suspicion of THC use.

Under House Bill 1114, drivers caught with 5 nanograms THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana that produces the "high" sensation, in their blood would be considered to be driving under the influence of marijuana and could be ticketed similarly to a person who was considered to be too drunk to drive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/too-stoned-to-drive-marij_n_3001016.html