YOU Balance the Budget (Cali) [Mobile/Archive]

RAMSTORIA

06-30-2009, 05:07 PM

i kinda just ran through this and im sure i would change things if i did it again. not only that this is soooo overly simplified its not even funny.

10 billion in cuts, 15 billion in new taxes.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-statebudget-fl,0,95571.htmlstory?sel=40/50/3/21/53/10/2/42/45/33/26/23/15/8/51/47/20/11/0/

im going to try and search for an old post i made a few months ago about how we got here and what our budget goes to...

edit, here it is, didnt reread it before posting ;)

i was going to say that as well, weve been in the shitter for years.

californias problem is simple, it has a spending problem. in 1997 our budget was 100 billion (31 billion from federal funds). in 2007 our budget was 200 billion (60 billion from federal funds)! now, just think about that for a minute. a 100% increase in 10 years?! something is wrong. if our budget had grown naturally over the last 10 years (based on inflation and population increases) wed have a surplus right now.

heres our upcoming budget, just take a look and let your mind be boggled.
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5347/55072218.gif

lets see...

30 billion of the budget goes to a broken education system.
nearly 10 billion is going to prisons.
38 billion going to health and human services

there ya go thats 65% of the budget right there. so what do we need, easy. health, education and prison reform. if it wasnt 1130 id look for the articles about how much is spent in california per student in education and how much actually makes it to the classroom level, its disturbing. we can cut the prison budget by releasing prisnoers, changing a few laws and getting rid of 3 strikes. and health... well we need to reboot that.

Koggit

06-30-2009, 05:09 PM

personally, there's no way i could support cutting k-12 or the universities

RAMSTORIA

06-30-2009, 05:13 PM

personally, there's no way i could support cutting k-12 or the universities

its a tough cut, but all it would do is shorten the school year by a few days. i dont know about you but when i went to school we spent more than a few days wasting time and doing nothing. its not an easy bill to swallow, but all things considered its one we probably have to.

fatherofcaitlyn

06-30-2009, 06:15 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-statebudget-fl-2,0,6957202.htmlstory

all i gotta say is holy shit

Great find and agreed.

JolietJake

06-30-2009, 06:27 PM

Considering the amount of time some kids miss because of snow in parts of the country, California could probably shave a few days off the school year and not have it really make a difference. Maybe even try to spin it as a positive thing.

KingBroly

06-30-2009, 06:43 PM

That Health & Human Services portion is a mighty big chunk. Education could care to lose a few administrators as well, or their pay cut.

lilboo

06-30-2009, 06:46 PM

Gay Marriage brings money, California. Buttttt you blew it. Good job. :applause:

fatherofcaitlyn

06-30-2009, 06:54 PM

Gay Marriage brings money, California. Buttttt you blew it. Good job. :applause:

The deficit is $20B.

If a marriage costs $200, you would need 200 million gay couples filling that hole.

HotShotX

06-30-2009, 06:56 PM

The deficit is $20B.

If a marriage costs $200, you would need 200 million gay couples filling that hole.

Ba-dum pssshhhh!

~HotShotX

lilboo

06-30-2009, 06:56 PM

The deficit is $20B.

If a marriage costs $200, you would need 200 million gay couples filling that hole.

It wouldn't solve the problem, but it surely would help out a great deal. And, please, finding 200 million gay couples to fill holes is easy [-(

RAMSTORIA

06-30-2009, 07:00 PM

Shrapnellistic

06-30-2009, 07:01 PM

Legalize and then tax weed. Pardon inmates with marijuana sentences.

lilboo

06-30-2009, 07:06 PM

revenue from gay marriage licenses wouldnt dent our shortfalls, estimated to only bring in ~20 million a year for the state (.01% of our short fall). not that every cent doesnt help.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute//publications/CASameSexMarriage.pdf

True..but then you think about all of the other expenses involved... outfits, a place to rent for a ceremony, food/catering, GIFTS <3

It gets taxed, it brings in more money.
Again, it's only a slight amount..but overall everything would help.

Koggit

06-30-2009, 07:37 PM

Legalize and then tax weed. Pardon inmates with marijuana sentences.

this is actually pretty brilliant... and what about prostitution while we're at it? escort services exist anyways, might as well regulate & tax em.. plus it'd bring in commerce from neighboring states, whose residents may not wanna drive to vegas

fatherofcaitlyn

06-30-2009, 07:54 PM

I say legalize murder and tax it.

Capitalizt

06-30-2009, 08:01 PM

I say legalize murder and tax it.

Finally an idea we can all get behind.

Liquid 2

06-30-2009, 08:24 PM

Nice find, Koggit.

It really kinda shows just how fucked things are there. I couldn't balance it without raising taxes, which I was utterly loathe to do. I also cut ~$5 billion in pensions for state workers and teachers, which the app told me might be illegal--which kinda blew me away--and which would almost certainly be challenged in court.

I say legalize murder and tax it.
I'm assuming you're being sarcastic and referring to Sharp's very rational and reasonable comment about legalizing weed.

Please, educate me: how is weed anything like murder?

fatherofcaitlyn

06-30-2009, 09:12 PM

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic and referring to Sharp's very rational and reasonable comment about legalizing weed.

Please, educate me: how is weed anything like murder?

The use of both are illegal.

Let's review the benefits of the legalization of murder.

1. Lower daycare costs due to dead children.
2. Smaller classroom sizes due to dead children.
3. Better teachers due to incompetent teachers being killed.
4. More courteous commutes due to angry drivers killing each other.
5. Fewer police required due to murders not being illegal. As an aside, cops could kill assault victims to keep their caseloads manageable.
6. Quicker divorces.
7. Recycling centers could finally pay good money for spent brass.
8. Ninjas.
9. Better wait staff due to the ability to tip with knives and bullets.
10. Better patrons due to wait staff having the ability to poison asshole clients.
11. Easier ways to get to the front of the ER.
12. Easier ways to unlock inheritance.
13. Social security and medicare insolvency solved overnight.

and my personal favorite...

14. Intentionally left blank.

What are the negative effects of legalizing murder?

Liquid 2

06-30-2009, 09:14 PM

...

lilboo

06-30-2009, 09:14 PM

:rofl:

elprincipe

06-30-2009, 10:27 PM

this is actually pretty brilliant... and what about prostitution while we're at it? escort services exist anyways, might as well regulate & tax em.. plus it'd bring in commerce from neighboring states, whose residents may not wanna drive to vegas

Don't agree with weed, but has anyone suggested legalizing (and taxing) prostitution yet? And why not? Neighboring Nevada has legal brothels. And it's not like reducing no-victim consensual-sex crimes won't be beneficial in other ways, such as reducing the burden on courts and jails. Good idea here.

My budget proposal under the simplified LAT site was $15.6 billion in cuts and around $8.4 billion in tax increases. Of course, it's more likely they'll do part of some of these proposals than the "cut the whole thing" presented. The gas tax put me over the top, but I would only need around $800 million and not the extra billions, so I'm not sure how much of an increase that would be (maybe 5 cents or something). I made sure not to do any one-time fixes, either, since that just postpones the decisions until next year.

But yeah, it's a tough situation. Unfortunately, California's government has completely failed the people there. Hope they figure something out, because there really is no good option given the obligations that the government has undertaken without the revenue to pay for them. Time to start cutting!

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-statebudget-fl,0,95571.htmlstory?sel=32/10/26/11/39/28/33/37/24/13/12/22/23/52/50/46/40/53/51/48/29/36/34/27/49/42/18/20/3/14/2/35/17/0/

lilboo

06-30-2009, 10:32 PM

Why not weed?

There are 3 things that are frowned upon but like.. there's money to be made. Things that will not go away so why not make money from it?! This applies to every state, not JUST CA.

Weed, Prostitutuon, and Gay Marriage. Legalize all 3 everywhere and we may just seem a boom in our economy ..

Liquid 2

06-30-2009, 10:57 PM

Let's legalize gay marriage and tax the shit out of it. 8-)

Paco

06-30-2009, 11:08 PM

I'm also in support of gay marriage. Charge the GAY Penalty, and make it a grand for the license. Then make the divorce called the asshole special and make it 80/20 since someone obviously has to be the bitch in the divorce. Now that's progressive.

lilboo

06-30-2009, 11:10 PM

Actually, Divorce in general SHOULD be taxed to hell since more people are getting divorced these days.

fullmetalfan720

06-30-2009, 11:10 PM

We should legalize weed. And prostitution. And gay marriage. On a national level. Then we might get out of this whole economic depression. Plus people would be much happier.

lilboo

06-30-2009, 11:13 PM

But the 3 of those would make the Christians mad. :(
Not because of those 3 things, but because Christians don't want anyone to be happy :(

fullmetalfan720

06-30-2009, 11:15 PM

Well, maybe someone will send them a free hooker

Dead of Knight

06-30-2009, 11:16 PM

Congratulations Californians, you're fucked. I don't even know what else to say at this point. God damn.

Liquid 2

06-30-2009, 11:18 PM

Actually, Divorce in general SHOULD be taxed to hell since more people are getting divorced these days.
Come on now, lilboo. That's just dumb.

I don't know why you'd want a government incentive to keep unhappy people in a relationship and under the same roof.

lilboo

06-30-2009, 11:21 PM

Since when does the Government care about us?

Paco

06-30-2009, 11:23 PM

Actually, Divorce in general SHOULD be taxed to hell since more people are getting divorced these days.

What we should do is make sure women get SHIT from the divorce and pay the government a PROTECTION tax that's far less then the ass reaming a divorce usually is. I'd pay for it and so would millions of married people in California.

Paco

06-30-2009, 11:24 PM

Congratulations Californians, you're fucked. I don't even know what else to say at this point. God damn.

We can at least say with pride that we at least aren't Rhode Island, Illinois, Detroit, and France.

georox

06-30-2009, 11:30 PM

What are the negative effects of legalizing murder?

I really fucking hate having to resharpen my knives, and people charge too much to do it for me.

KingBroly

06-30-2009, 11:49 PM

We can at least say with pride that we at least aren't Rhode Island, Illinois, Detroit, and France.

Well...Detroit isn't bankrupt...yet.

magiic

07-01-2009, 12:00 AM

this is actually pretty brilliant... and what about prostitution while we're at it? escort services exist anyways, might as well regulate & tax em.. plus it'd bring in commerce from neighboring states, whose residents may not wanna drive to vegas

Prostitution is legal in New Zealand and taxed. For what's it worth. One of the many things I learned about while I was down there.

Dr Mario Kart

07-01-2009, 12:05 AM

Repeal prop 13 which locks personal property taxes at 1%, and problem solved....once they also fix their constitution so it cant be amended by simple majority in a ballot initiative.

Dead of Knight

07-01-2009, 12:25 AM

Well...Detroit isn't bankrupt...yet.

It is in every other sense of the word.

RAMSTORIA

07-01-2009, 01:35 AM

once they also fix their constitution so it cant be amended by simple majority in a ballot initiative.

terrible idea. if the legislature could have passed budgets over the last 10 years with a 51% majority wed be in much worse shape than we are right now.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 02:09 AM

I hate these. It took years to rack up the debt and they want a magic bullet to solve it within a year. You can't do that. It will take at least a decade to minimize the debt without collapsing California in the process. New taxes will only further increase the debt as well.

As Kogett said - deficit, not debt. It did, in fact, take a year to run this up. ;)

And for all you people who think California is screwed, give it a few years and our federal government will be in the same position.

Capitalizt

07-01-2009, 07:17 AM

And for all you people who think California is screwed, give it a few years and our federal government will be in the same position.

The federal government is actually in much much worse shape..infinitely worse actually. Cali is worried about a $24 billion shortfall. The federal government has a $1.8 TRILLION shortfall this year and another $10 trillion in expected deficits over the next 10 years. Long term unfunded obligations (that can't be covered by current tax rates) exceed $50 trillion.

Difference between the federal government and California state government?

The feds can print money. ;)

mykevermin

07-01-2009, 09:49 AM

The diminutive DMK has a good point.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 10:21 AM

Difference between the federal government and California state government?

The feds can print money. ;)

Not to Godwin the conversation, but that's the same thing Hitler tried. It didn't work well for him and, one day, it'll stop working for us.

Msut77

07-01-2009, 11:52 AM

You are thinking of the Weimar Republic.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 11:59 AM

Whoops - you're right. ;)

I guess it *did* help Hitler rise to power.
Looks like we are actually on-track to socialism. ;)

Msut77

07-01-2009, 12:04 PM

Looks like we are actually on-track to socialism.

That's a new one on me.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-01-2009, 01:51 PM

OK. I'm going to try give a good reason to keep weed illegal.

Ready?

The public at large does not need another avenue to cloud their perception of reality.

Our lords and masters are driving us faster and faster down the road of ruin.

As a whole or as individuals, we need to keep our eyes open for ways to slow down the deterioration of our rights and futures or maybe even reverse the process.

depascal22

07-01-2009, 02:31 PM

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 02:34 PM

OK. I'm going to try give a good reason to keep weed illegal.
[...]
As a whole or as individuals, we need to keep our eyes open for ways to slow down the deterioration of our rights and futures or maybe even reverse the process.

Shouldn't it already be my right to do what I want to my body? Perhaps legalizing weed is the first step to reversing that process.

Mind you, I have no desire to smoke or sell marijuana, but I'm all for making it (and Industrial Hemp) legal.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-01-2009, 03:07 PM

Dude, all of our rights are an illusion as it is. The Constistitution can be re-interpreted to mean anything these days. You guys keep pretending like the Constitution is set in stone and the government at large (not just the Obama Administration but the entire government) isn't already too big to fail.

So why not legalize weed? And if you think it clouds reality like the TV commercials, then I have a bridge for you to buy. As soon as I remember where it is.

My rights aren't an illusion. The perception that I can exercise my rights is the illusion. We both know our government is a police state. If anybody gets in its way, they get squashed.

Weed? It is just another version of bread and circuses. Does it have same stupefying effect as American Idol, the Rush Limbaugh show, Rachel Maddow, the Final Four tournament or any of the other of millions of distractions generated by government? They're in the same river and pushing us in the same direction.

JolietJake

07-01-2009, 03:12 PM

When you take into consideration how many different interpretations there are of the christian bible, it doesn't surprise me that there are multiple interpretations of our constitution. Only the people who wrote it really know what they meant anyway, that goes for any document.

depascal22

07-01-2009, 03:24 PM

fatherofcaitlyn

07-01-2009, 04:35 PM

Wasn't it (or the Declaration of Independence) written on hemp anyway? I just can't believe that we glorify alcohol and vilify marijuana. Hell, tobacco is still legal.

I just don't like the idea that we should ban something just because it allows people to tune out the world. Like you said, there are millions of things out there that will people use to tune out but weed can't be one of them? Why not allow the natural herb?

Let's try this a different way: Legalize weed, but don't tax it.

...

Let's try one of my award-winning analogies: Playing the part of the government will be wife. Playing the part of the economy will be my house and possessions. Playing the part of the American people will be me. Playing the part of future American generations will be my children.

Here's the scene ...

I came home from work. As I walked through the door, my wife lights the gasoline she had poured through the house. My children, in the next room, are bound and gagged. My wife asks, "Would you like a blowjob?"

...

I have a lot of weird economic thought fragments regarding weed legalization. Such as "drug bubble", "Malthusian economics" or "treating symptoms instead of disease". Maybe I'll have enough time or desire to form a coherent thought later.

RAMSTORIA

07-01-2009, 04:59 PM

Wasn't it (or the Declaration of Independence) written on hemp anyway?

good news, you can buy hemp paper.

GuilewasNK

07-01-2009, 05:04 PM

California needs to cut their fat, not find new ways to grab money from its citizens. You lower taxes and that will help entice employers to set up shop in your state. You take care of unemployment with that and then your tax revenues will go up naturally because you have more taxable income from citizens.

Msut77

07-01-2009, 05:32 PM

At this point it wouldn't be cutting the fat so much as it would be eating your seed corn.

elprincipe

07-02-2009, 12:36 AM

We can at least say with pride that we at least aren't Rhode Island, Illinois, Detroit, and France.

Scorpio: By the way Homer, what's your least favorite country, Italy or France?
Homer: Uh... France.
Scorpio: Nobody ever says Italy.

elprincipe

07-02-2009, 12:41 AM

Repeal prop 13 which locks personal property taxes at 1%, and problem solved....once they also fix their constitution so it cant be amended by simple majority in a ballot initiative.

Tax revenue isn't California's problem. Their problem is they've massively increased their budget over just the last few years. Arnold's done a great job doing the opposite of what he promised when running for governor, and the people of the state keep voting for idiotic ballot initiatives that cause the state to bleed more money than ever. So looking at things that way, I guess if they keep voting for more spending, maybe more taxes is fair, at least so the rest of us in this country aren't made to bail them out.

KingBroly

07-02-2009, 02:37 AM

How many politicians really follow through with what they say they're going to do and it works out well?

I know saying cut the budget sounds simple, but you know, they know which of their pet projects aren't working (hint: every single one), and those have to go.

elprincipe

07-03-2009, 12:52 AM

I've just read that if the California budget had been allowed simply to grow in relation to population and inflation, right now they would have a $15 billion SURPLUS. Amazing.

RAMSTORIA

07-03-2009, 03:08 AM

yeah, i posted that on the first page and months ago. the budget has doubled in the last 10 years, its unbelievable.

elprincipe

07-09-2009, 08:23 AM

http://reason.com/news/show/134445.html

elprincipe

07-13-2009, 11:00 PM

And in a preview of what will happen if cap-and-trade madness takes hold in the Senate having already infected 219 representatives, again California shows us the way:

http://www.pr-inside.com/california-small-businesses-face-r1385284.htm

spmahn

07-13-2009, 11:42 PM

There are easier ways to balance the budget than opening Pandora's Boxes that you won't ever be able to shut when you do things like legalizing drugs and prostitution. Some of the stuff on here is silly and obvious like cutting drug rehab for criminals, deporting illegal immigrants in jail, and granting early release to non-violent offenders. In fact eliminating a jail sentence for certain non-violent crimes has always made sense to me. Drug users, people caught with child porn (Just viewing it, not making it), etc. can all be handled much better and much easier by being placed in a group home setting where they will received counseling. No need to waste taxpayers dollars by having these people spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Other things however are more difficult. Yeah, cutting welfare benefits and health care subsidies for the poor may seem like a good idea, but then most of those people will probably turn to crime and the hospitals will just have the burden of having to take care of these people when they show up at the emergency room without money or insurance. Then you have to deal with Hospitals / Emergency rooms shutting down, etc. etc. Maybe rather than dolling out money directly to the needy, they can provide funding to hospitals to be used specifically to provide basic care for people that show up at the emergency room without the means to pay. Crime however is a whole different situation that you'll want to avoid whatever way you can.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's Arnold's last term in office, so he can make the tough decisions and not have to answer for them.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-14-2009, 11:40 AM

I miss the California of my youth. There were Mexicans, gangs and drugs, but it seemed like a great place to live.

Now, it seems like a temperate New Jersey.

millenium_dare

07-14-2009, 03:46 PM

Cut the state's spending for illegal immigrants and their children. It's estimated that we spend over $10 billion a year (2004 numbers so it could be much higher now) on schooling, health care and incarceration for illegals. Even if they all began to pay taxes, we'd still have a net loss of over $8 billion. In these times of hardship I could really care less about compassion. We need to help American citizens, not tax them to death and In the long run, we can do a lot more good in the world with a healthy economy.

vherub

07-15-2009, 03:54 PM

Koggit

07-15-2009, 04:11 PM

I would say legalize all drugs (hell, most of our food has harmful chemicals in them, sprayed on them or in the feed with little or no disclosure) and tax them at a very high rate.
But also treat drug sales as a state-owned monopoly. California would be the only legal distributor and seller. And there would be strict regulations on where they may be used. Charge a license for anyone who wishes to purchase drugs- and make it one drug per license, so if you want to use multiple drugs, you need to purchase multiple licenses.

Take those resources being used to fight the drug war and turn that into seed money.

The revenue would be a gravy train.

i fully support legalizing all drugs, and I think the state control thing is a good idea (Washington does that with liquor, hard alcohol is only sold in state owned Liquor & Wine stores, works well & the state profits)...

people are gonna do drugs, no way around it, and there are countless benefits of controlling it. half of all prisoners are in for drug related charges... and half of those are just for marijuana. it's insane. even disregarding taxation, the amount we'd save on corrections is enormous. plus, i wouldn't have to worry about my weed being sprayed with glass or asbestos or anything like that...

spmahn

07-15-2009, 10:43 PM

rabbitt

07-15-2009, 10:48 PM

fullmetalfan720

07-15-2009, 10:58 PM

The "legalize all drugs" argument is absolutely ludicrous. You want your Marijuana? Fine, whatever, but there is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY no reason at all to legalize Cocaine, or Heroin, or any other addictive, mind altering drugs. These drugs aren't just something you fool around with to have fun, they are destructive even beyond simply causing harm to the user. The people who will use these drugs will not be able to afford to feed their addiction, and will turn to crime to do so. Then we'll have to spend even more of our tax dollars to house these people in jail, pay for their rehabilitation, and all the associated health problems that will come as a result. I just don't understand how any sane person could make such an argument.
What you talk about is going to happen whether or not drugs are legal, however if drugs were legal, we would largely get rid of all the gangs, that make a large amount of their money off illegal drugs. Plus, when was the last time you heard of anyone crashing their car when they were high? Then, when was the last time you heard of someone crashing their car when drunk?

rabbitt

07-15-2009, 11:02 PM

spmahn

07-15-2009, 11:12 PM

What you talk about is going to happen whether or not drugs are legal, however if drugs were legal, we would largely get rid of all the gangs, that make a large amount of their money off illegal drugs. Plus, when was the last time you heard of anyone crashing their car when they were high? Then, when was the last time you heard of someone crashing their car when drunk?

No, if you legalize the the problem will be much much worse. Despite what the media fear mongers tell you, it's not as easy as walking down to your local corner project and ringing the bell for service. You have to know how to find them, and have to know who to get them from, and this prevents a large percentage of people who may otherwise do drugs from doing so, because they are too stupid or too lazy to do that kind of work.

If you legalize drugs, you also eliminate the largest barrier which stands in the way of people doing them, fear of getting caught and going to prison. Yes, it's rather silly to waste our money incarcerating drug users, but if that's what it takes to scare people away from doing them, then so be it. Legalizing drugs is like taking medication to fix your headache, but then getting cancer from the medication you were taking for your headaches. Yeah, getting rid of the illegal drug trade and some gang violence would be great, but not at the expense of causing a whole other set of problems that'll end up being even worse.

rabbitt

07-16-2009, 12:23 AM

No, if you legalize the the problem will be much much worse. Despite what the media fear mongers tell you, it's not as easy as walking down to your local corner project and ringing the bell for service. You have to know how to find them, and have to know who to get them from, and this prevents a large percentage of people who may otherwise do drugs from doing so, because they are too stupid or too lazy to do that kind of work.

Silly. The people who want to do drugs will do drugs. I probably know someone who knows someone, who could hook me up if I desired. In fact, I can think of two to three direct sources I could go to this instance, and I've never even done so before.

If you legalize drugs, you also eliminate the largest barrier which stands in the way of people doing them, fear of getting caught and going to prison. Yes, it's rather silly to waste our money incarcerating drug users, but if that's what it takes to scare people away from doing them, then so be it. Legalizing drugs is like taking medication to fix your headache, but then getting cancer from the medication you were taking for your headaches. Yeah, getting rid of the illegal drug trade and some gang violence would be great, but not at the expense of causing a whole other set of problems that'll end up being even worse.

The largest barrier between people and drugs is not because they are illegal. I don't know where you're getting your information (Fox news, perhaps?), but it is severely flawed. How many people do you know who are just sittin' around waitin' for cocaine to be legalized so that they can do a few lines? No, the law is not the Number 1 deterrence of drug use. Most people simply choose not to do drugs (yes, you have the choice).

Your analogy is also weak, and, I think if you'll read it again, you might agree (privately). You also seriously underestimate the value of eliminating the monopoly that international mobs have over certain illegal drugs, domestic gang violence, the money we would save from not criminalizing victimless crime offenders, the money we would save from the War on Drugs and the wild goose chases that ensue from it, and so on.

All that said, your argument should have started with "We don't have a competent FDA, so how can we legalize drugs?" and I might be agreeing with you at this point.

spmahn

07-16-2009, 12:55 AM

Silly. The people who want to do drugs will do drugs. I probably know someone who knows someone, who could hook me up if I desired. In fact, I can think of two to three direct sources I could go to this instance, and I've never even done so before.
Maybe I am a naive suburban white male who has no experience in what it's like to live in the inner city, but I've never done drugs, I don't know anyone who has done drugs (and I'm talking about anything harder than Marijuana here), and I wouldn't even know where to begin to go about getting them if I wanted to. Maybe I'm sheltered, but something tells me that there very well might be a lot of white collar middle to upper class people out there that don't do drugs not because they don't want to, but because they don't have access to them.

I'm not saying that all these people, or any of them for that matter, will instantly start doing drugs when they became available, but it's certainly a possibility that some might.

and what of those people who would turn to hard drugs to try and escape their problems the way others might turn to alcohol or cigarettes or marijuana? The harder drugs out there cannot considered to be in the same category as these things. People can drink the occasional beer and not become reliant upon alcohol to live (Although some argue that alcohol dependence is a real disease for many people, but that's another argument), and while cigarettes may be addictive for many, the withdrawal symptoms aren't terribly severe when compared to harder drugs.

The hard drugs however are in a world all their own. They will alter the chemistry in your brain, and cause you to become completely dependent upon them to continue living. You can cut out your cigarettes with a patch and a 12 step program, you can't go to an AA Meeting to fix your heroin or cocaine addiction.

We've already got skyrocketing health costs in this country due to fattys who can't stop eating and get diabetes and heart disease, and superficial people who can't stay out of the sunlight and end up with cancer. Do we really need to start footing the bill for meth addicts to check into the Betty Ford Clinic too?

Msut77

07-16-2009, 01:05 AM

Do we really need to start footing the bill for meth addicts to check into the Betty Ford Clinic too?

Cheaper than prison.

spmahn

07-16-2009, 01:41 AM

Cheaper than prison.

The cheapest route would be cutting off the supply so people can't get addicted in the first place, but maybe I'm too much of an idealist.

My ideal solution is punish the drug dealers severely, they are the main problem. Force the users into rehab that they will have to pay back on their dime one way or another.

The solution is not to legalize everything, or to punish everyone. The drug problem is a system, and requires systems thinking to resolve. A book I would recommend to everyone is this:

http://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Discipline-Practice-Learning-Organization/dp/0385260954

It may be a tad dry for a lot of people, but it will really improve your critical thinking and problems solving skills. The book details how just about all problems can be laid out in a repetitive loop in which one problems provides feedback causing something a different response, etc. until it loops back into the original problem. In the book, there are several archetypes which describe common situations, and the problems with the common ways we deal with them. In systems thinking, Legalizing drugs would likely be in the fixes that fail archetype, which is laid out here:

http://www.systems-thinking.org/arch/arch.htm#archff

Yes, in the short term, legalizing drugs would ease the burden on our prisons, and would slow down the illegal drug trade and gang problems, but it would have long term unintended consequences. You would end up with a lot of people who are desperately addicted to horrible substances that are poisoning their body. These people, whose judgment is already completely impaired by these substances, require more of these substances to continue living, and will go through any measure possible to ensure they continue to have a steady supply. Now all of a sudden you've got more crime, more poverty, and more homelessness.

I do not buy the argument that "People who do drugs will do them anyways, and people won't just magically start smoking crack just because it's legal", that is complete and utter bullshit. There are 45 million adult smokers in this country, 15% of our population that takes these little sticks of poison and breathe them into their mouths, without any rational reason as to why they are doing so. People do not need a reason to do these things, they simply do it because they can. Sure, smoking's not so bad, it's pretty gross, but as long as you stay away from it, the effects it has on non-smokers is minimal at best. Now imagine 45 million cocaine users in this country? 45 Million Heroin Addicts? People are not rational, many are stupid, and we do not need to give stupid people the ability to make more stupid decisions.

You want to alleviate the drug problem? Get people to stop using them in the first place!!!!!! If there's no demand, then there is no need for a supply!

But perhaps I'm living in a fantasy world....

Ruined

07-16-2009, 01:43 AM

Cheaper than prison.

So when the number of meth addicts that need treatment rise tenfold as hard time is phased out as a deterring threat/consequence, how exactly does it remain cheaper?

elprincipe

07-16-2009, 02:01 AM

Plus, when was the last time you heard of anyone crashing their car when they were high?

http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/news/drug_fuelled_motorist_killed_himself_and_another_d river_1_583516?referrerPath=news/

That took three seconds of searching.

elprincipe

07-16-2009, 02:05 AM

Also, why do people think that something being illegal doesn't discourage it? Surely everyone can accept that there is at least some deterrent effect. Sure, not everybody is going to be deterred, but at least some people don't do drugs simply because they don't want to run afoul of the law. Saying otherwise is illogical on its face, regardless of what you think on legalization.

Msut77

07-16-2009, 02:43 AM

The cheapest route would be cutting off the supply so people can't get addicted in the first place, but maybe I'm too much of an idealist.

That isn't cheap and is more or less the status quo.

Law Enforcement doesn't work for free and the money spent on the all-to-literal war on drugs isn't chump change either.

My ideal solution is punish the drug dealers severely, they are the main problem.

Prison terms are already pretty lengthy, what else did you have in mind?

Force the users into rehab that they will have to pay back on their dime one way or another.

Interesting that you think rehab is something people should "pay back" but prison is apparently on the house.

The solution is not to legalize everything, or to punish everyone. The drug problem is a system, and requires systems thinking to resolve. A book I would recommend to everyone is this:

I'm not the one with the problem in critical thinking judging from our past discussions. The book seems somewhat interesting but it has to do with business organizations which in my opinion is less applicable than you seem to think. I would have gone with a historical parallel like prohibition.

Yes, in the short term, legalizing drugs would ease the burden on our prisons, and would slow down the illegal drug trade and gang problems, but it would have long term unintended consequences. You would end up with a lot of people who are desperately addicted to horrible substances that are poisoning their body. These people, whose judgment is already completely impaired by these substances, require more of these substances to continue living, and will go through any measure possible to ensure they continue to have a steady supply. Now all of a sudden you've got more crime, more poverty, and more homelessness.

I think the word you are looking for is decriminalization which is a bit different.

Everything you described happens in societies that have draconian drug laws, strict laws don't change the physiology of drugs nor the depths addicts will go to, you are missing a few steps.

I do not buy the argument that "People who do drugs will do them anyways, and people won't just magically start smoking crack just because it's legal", that is complete and utter bullshit. There are 45 million adult smokers in this country, 15% of our population that takes these little sticks of poison and breathe them into their mouths, without any rational reason as to why they are doing so. People do not need a reason to do these things, they simply do it because they can. Sure, smoking's not so bad, it's pretty gross, but as long as you stay away from it, the effects it has on non-smokers is minimal at best. Now imagine 45 million cocaine users in this country? 45 Million Heroin Addicts? People are not rational, many are stupid, and we do not need to give stupid people the ability to make more stupid decisions.

Maybe it was my fault for being a bit imprecise but it seems as if you would rather tilt at strawmen. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, it has so far been a success.

You want to alleviate the drug problem? Get people to stop using them in the first place!!!!!! If there's no demand, then there is no need for a supply!

But perhaps I'm living in a fantasy world....

I don't know which emoticon would be most appropriate.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-16-2009, 10:20 AM

Eh, Msut77 already cut the argument apart.

If you legalize drugs, people who become addicted to drugs or damaged through the use of drugs get to ...

SUE!

International drug cartels would rather deal with John Q. Police Officer than John Q. Trial Lawyer.

UncleBob

07-16-2009, 10:34 AM

Yay! Let's shift the cost of stupid people who can't seem to control their own actions from law enforcement to the judicial system! Yee-Haw!

fatherofcaitlyn

07-16-2009, 10:50 AM

Yay! Let's shift the cost of stupid people who can't seem to control their own actions from law enforcement to the judicial system! Yee-Haw!

We've done it with tobacco and bars.

nasum

07-16-2009, 11:29 AM

Finally an idea we can all get behind.

nah, that's gay marriage!

spmahn

07-16-2009, 01:08 PM

Maybe it was my fault for being a bit imprecise but it seems as if you would rather tilt at strawmen. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, it has so far been a success.

Portugal also has a population less than 1/3rd the size of California alone, so I don't see how that's an apt comparison. Portugal didn't decriminalize drugs in the way many advocates here want it done. They still prosecute the dealers and producers, it's just the users that use in moderation that don't go to prison, and get forced rehab instead. The government didn't get involved with drug dealing themselves the way people here seem to want them to do it, they are actively trying to get people to stop doing them in the first place, which is what I've been saying all along. Unfortunately I feel our population is too large, and drug use is too pervasive for that to work in this country,

Msut77

07-16-2009, 01:22 PM

Portugal also has a population less than 1/3rd the size of California alone, so I don't see how that's an apt comparison.

I don't see how population is relevant here.

Portugal didn't decriminalize drugs in the way many advocates here want it done. They still prosecute the dealers and producers, it's just the users that use in moderation that don't go to prison, and get forced rehab instead.

I wasn't saying we shouldn't go after the major dealers and importers so much as I was pointing out that it isn't cheap to do so.

The government didn't get involved with drug dealing themselves the way people here seem to want them to do it, they are actively trying to get people to stop doing them in the first place, which is what I've been saying all along.

Mostly it was Marijuana people are talking about the government selling, you even make the distinction between that and other drugs. As for what kogg was saying, states sell lotto tickets and then place a little sticker offering treatment on the machines....

Unfortunately I feel our population is too large, and drug use is too pervasive for that to work in this country

Maybe if rehab was "free" the way you think prison is we might have a fighting chance of making it work.

lilboo

07-16-2009, 01:26 PM

:oops: I actually agree with Spmham on something.
There really should never be any reason to legalize anything harder than weed.

However, a problem is that people do abuse prescription drugs. :( ...and I don't think there's really anyway out of that.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-16-2009, 01:29 PM

Portugal also has a population less than 1/3rd the size of California alone, so I don't see how that's an apt comparison. Portugal didn't decriminalize drugs in the way many advocates here want it done. They still prosecute the dealers and producers, it's just the users that use in moderation that don't go to prison, and get forced rehab instead. The government didn't get involved with drug dealing themselves the way people here seem to want them to do it, they are actively trying to get people to stop doing them in the first place, which is what I've been saying all along. Unfortunately I feel our population is too large, and drug use is too pervasive for that to work in this country,

Do you believe Portugal's method has worked?

spmahn

07-16-2009, 01:32 PM

Mostly it was Marijuana people are talking about the government selling, you even make the distinction between that and other drugs. As for what kogg was saying, states sell lotto tickets and then place a little sticker offering treatment on the machines....

You again cannot make the comparison between marijuana or gambling and hard drugs. Lotto tickets and Weed do not alter the physical chemistry in your brain the way Heroin and Cocaine does.

Maybe if rehab was "free" the way you think prison is we might have a fighting chance of making it work.

So essentially you'd be shifting the burden away from prisons and toward drug rehab facilities. The only way drug rehab would work in the first place is if it took place in a closely monitored on site living situation, essentially a minimum security prison, so I really don't see the difference there.

spmahn

07-16-2009, 01:35 PM

Do you believe Portugal's method has worked?

I believe it has worked for them, but probably wouldn't work for us since it would have to be applied on a much larger scale, and we don't have the money, or resources to make it work.

Msut77

07-16-2009, 02:10 PM

You again cannot make the comparison between marijuana or gambling and hard drugs. Lotto tickets and Weed do not alter the physical chemistry in your brain the way Heroin and Cocaine does.

Gambling is an addiction, it certainly does cause a reaction in the brain and it ruins lives. You absolutely can make a comparison.

So essentially you'd be shifting the burden away from prisons and toward drug rehab facilities.

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

The only way drug rehab would work in the first place is if it took place in a closely monitored on site living situation, essentially a minimum security prison, so I really don't see the difference there.

I sincerely doubt you have the bona fides to say "only" and yes there is quite a difference either way.

I believe it has worked for them, but probably wouldn't work for us since it would have to be applied on a much larger scale, and we don't have the money, or resources to make it work.

Per Capita and about any you wish to measure it we are richer than Portugal. Also, as many times as this needs to be repeated to you... the status quo isn't free. It is in fact quite expensive.

spmahn

07-16-2009, 02:25 PM

You say that as if it is a bad thing.I never said it was a bad thing, it's not really a good thing or a bad thing, it's a neutral thing. We've already got the prison system in place, and it does an adequate job as it is, why spend further money establishing government run drug rehab facilities that would essentially be redundant?

Gambling is an addiction, it certainly does cause a reaction in the brain and it ruins lives. You absolutely can make a comparison.

If the two things are comparable, then why is it that you can go to any church basement on a Tuesday night and get help overcoming your Gambling addiction, while cocaine and heroin addicts require medical treatment as well as cognitive therapy to overcome their problem? Gambling is a problem for many people, but nothing about it changes the physical chemistry of your brain the way drugs do. Some people have an addictive personality and get addicted to gambling, but the gambling did not cause the addictive personality in the first place. Not everyone becomes addicted to gambling on the basis of playing the Powerball every once in a while. Everyone who uses heroin or cocaine even on a irregular basis WILL become addicted to it, because of the effects it will have on your body.

Per Capita and about any you wish to measure it we are richer than Portugal. Also, as many times as this needs to be repeated to you... the status quo isn't free. It is in fact quite expensive.Where did I ever say the current system was "free"? I don't remember having said that, however I don't see how drug rehab would be any less expensive than prison, given the process that it takes to get people off of hard drugs.

Msut77

07-16-2009, 02:35 PM

We've already got the prison system in place, and it does an adequate job as it is, why spend further money establishing government run drug rehab facilities that would essentially be redundant?

Because it isn't doing an adequate job and as I pointed out in the first post of our exchange rehab is much cheaper than prison.

Where did I ever say the current system was "free"? I don't remember having said that...

You certainly pretend as if it is.

however I don't see how drug rehab would be any less expensive than prison, given the process that it takes to get people off of hard drugs.

I have yet to see a single study saying prison is cheaper than rehab.

If the two things are comparable...

And they are.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-16-2009, 02:36 PM

I believe it has worked for them, but probably wouldn't work for us since it would have to be applied on a much larger scale, and we don't have the money, or resources to make it work.

What if we did it in Maine or Vermont?

Let's say population or population density is key. Start with low population and population density areas and move towards higher pop/pop density areas until there is no benefit.

We have 50 laboratories of democracy, let's use them.

Koggit

07-16-2009, 02:59 PM

The "legalize all drugs" argument is absolutely ludicrous. You want your Marijuana? Fine, whatever, but there is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY no reason at all to legalize Cocaine, or Heroin, or any other addictive, mind altering drugs. These drugs aren't just something you fool around with to have fun, they are destructive even beyond simply causing harm to the user. The people who will use these drugs will not be able to afford to feed their addiction, and will turn to crime to do so. Then we'll have to spend even more of our tax dollars to house these people in jail, pay for their rehabilitation, and all the associated health problems that will come as a result. I just don't understand how any sane person could make such an argument.

People smart enough not to do drugs will not drugs. You honestly think anybody that wants to do cocaine or heroin stays away from it because it's illegal? Hell no. Prohibition proved it, and countries with legal narcotics prove it, legality isn't a deterrent.

At least by legalizing it we can tax, regulate, and track it. We can prevent the scamming, which is often dangerous (mixing narcotics with cheaper, hard-to-detect substances to increase the weight -- substances which dont belong in your lungs/blood)... and I'm pretty sure letting out half of the people in prisons for drug-related crimes isn't going to increase how much we spend on correctional facilities.

I definitely don't believe we'll have all drugs legalized anytime soon, if ever... it's not something I actually expect... though I think MJ's gonna be legal soon.

spmahn

07-16-2009, 03:50 PM

People smart enough not to do drugs will not drugs. You honestly think anybody that wants to do cocaine or heroin stays away from it because it's illegal? Hell no. Prohibition proved it, and countries with legal narcotics prove it, legality isn't a deterrent.

At least by legalizing it we can tax, regulate, and track it. We can prevent the scamming, which is often dangerous (mixing narcotics with cheaper, hard-to-detect substances to increase the weight -- substances which dont belong in your lungs/blood)... and I'm pretty sure letting out half of the people in prisons for drug-related crimes isn't going to increase how much we spend on correctional facilities.

I definitely don't believe we'll have all drugs legalized anytime soon, if ever... it's not something I actually expect... though I think MJ's gonna be legal soon.

I bring you back to my 45 million smokers in America argument. Clearly there are a whole lot of people out there who aren't particularly bright when it comes to making smart or even rational decisions regarding their health, but criminal prosecution seems to be a deterrent for many of them. Many people do not do drugs because they don't have access to them, but might give it some consideration if they were readily available, what about them? If this country relies on selling drugs to raise tax dollars, then where do you draw the line? Do you allow manufacturers of Heroin and Cocaine to market their products to try and entice people to use them? If the goal is to get people to stop using these products in the first place, then why make it easier for people to get them?

I understand the argument for decriminalization that has been presented here, even if I do not agree with it, but to go even beyond that and have the government legally start dealing drugs is madness, and would have far greater consequences then any potential benefits it might bring along.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-16-2009, 04:27 PM

I bring you back to my 45 million smokers in America argument. Clearly there are a whole lot of people out there who aren't particularly bright when it comes to making smart or even rational decisions regarding their health, but criminal prosecution seems to be a deterrent for many of them. Many people do not do drugs because they don't have access to them, but might give it some consideration if they were readily available, what about them? If this country relies on selling drugs to raise tax dollars, then where do you draw the line? Do you allow manufacturers of Heroin and Cocaine to market their products to try and entice people to use them? If the goal is to get people to stop using these products in the first place, then why make it easier for people to get them?

I understand the argument for decriminalization that has been presented here, even if I do not agree with it, but to go even beyond that and have the government legally start dealing drugs is madness, and would have far greater consequences then any potential benefits it might bring along.

Tobacco clearly causes health problems. Alcohol clearly causes health problems.

Will any illegal drug cause health problems after it is legalized? Yes.

Will more people partake of legalized drugs after legalization? Yes.

Will the government have to shoulder the burden of the increased problems? Yes.

Will the government pass that burden onto the manufacturers of legalized drugs? Yes.

Will the drug manufacturers pass the costs onto their consumers? Yes.

Will I personally have to pay those costs under the new system? No.

Do I personally have to pay those costs under the current system (ie prisons, DEA, more police, etc)? Yes.

spmahn

07-16-2009, 05:02 PM

Tobacco clearly causes health problems. Alcohol clearly causes health problems.

Will any illegal drug cause health problems after it is legalized? Yes.

Will more people partake of legalized drugs after legalization? Yes.

Will the government have to shoulder the burden of the increased problems? Yes.

Will the government pass that burden onto the manufacturers of legalized drugs? Yes.

Will the drug manufacturers pass the costs onto their consumers? Yes.

Will I personally have to pay those costs under the new system? No.

Do I personally have to pay those costs under the current system (ie prisons, DEA, more police, etc)? Yes.

If the steep taxes and federal legislation ends up causing the price of legalized drugs to be substantially higher that the illegally produced drugs, then why would people all of a sudden start buying the legal government produced stuff? If anything it would make the problem of the illegal drug trade worse, people will have access to legal government produced drugs, get hooked, not be able to afford them, or not want to pay higher prices, and be forced to turn to street dealers and the black market to get their fix.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-16-2009, 05:31 PM

You better hope my reply posts before Msut77 gets here.

If the steep taxes and federal legislation ends up causing the price of legalized drugs to be substantially higher that the illegally produced drugs, then why would people all of a sudden start buying the legal government produced stuff?

The court costs, loss of income and social stigma associated with incarceration of "illegal" pot will far surpass any initial tax of "legal" pot. Let's file that under not going to happen.

If anything it would make the problem of the illegal drug trade worse, people will have access to legal government produced drugs, get hooked, not be able to afford them, or not want to pay higher prices, and be forced to turn to street dealers and the black market to get their fix.

Has this happened for tobacco?

Has this happened for alcohol?

Don't worry: Anybody can destroy their lives with anything. I can get fired over playing Mafia Wars at work. Should the government make Mafia Wars illegal if I become addicted to it?

RAMSTORIA

07-16-2009, 05:38 PM

Has this happened for tobacco?

if anyone knows where i can get some underground tobacco please let me know.

spmahn

07-16-2009, 05:49 PM

You better hope my reply posts before Msut77 gets here.

The court costs, loss of income and social stigma associated with incarceration of "illegal" pot will far surpass any initial tax of "legal" pot. Let's file that under not going to happen.

Has this happened for tobacco?

Has this happened for alcohol?

Don't worry: Anybody can destroy their lives with anything. I can get fired over playing Mafia Wars at work. Should the government make Mafia Wars illegal if I become addicted to it?

We aren't talking about Marijuana! I've said from the beginning, I could care less about Marijuana, it's a non issue in this debate.

We don't have a black market for Tobacco because it's always been legal, there has never been a reason for one to exist, the current Tobacco manufacturers have 100% market share on their product, and produce it in such a way that can not be easily replicated by anyone else. People smoke Cigarettes because they are addicted to the nasty chemicals they put in them, not because they enjoy smoking a plant. People wouldn't want black market cigarettes because they would not provide a reasonable alternative to what it is that they want.

We only briefly had a black market for Alcohol because it was illegal. Even when that happened however, production was done by disconnected, independent producers, and it wasn't really organized. People drink alcohol because they enjoy the taste of whatever it is that they drink, not because they they enjoy fermented starch. People wouldn't want black market alcohol because they want good tasting alcohol, not something some guy is producing in his basement. Black market alcohol does exist, however people produce it as a hobby, not as a business venture.

The black market for Illicit Drugs is massive, and has been well established for a long time. It will not disappear overnight just because drugs are made legal. The producers of these drugs are organized and deeply entrenched in the governments of the countries they operate out of. They have their own armies, and operate openly. They will compete with legalized drugs, and will likely win due to substantially lower prices.

You can't compare a guy rolling his own cigarettes, or someone making hooch in his bath tub, to what are essentially national corporations in other countries.

nasum

07-16-2009, 06:00 PM

spmahn

07-16-2009, 06:30 PM

everything in post #106 here is silly.

People smoke because they enjoy smoking and that is their choice. The banning of smoking in public places has been on the rise nationwide. People drink because they enjoy the taste AND the effects of intoxication. There are those that can't handle either of these, those are your addicts. The problem has never been one of legalization of either of these products, it has always been an issue of abuse and addiction.

You're saying that marijuana isn't the root of the debate, yet going on about coke and heroin like the answer lies there. This is complete nonesense, akin to having your cake and eating it too. If you're going to discuss illegal drugs, then you have to throw all of them in together. If you really want to get absurd, go ahead and throw in the opiate from which these drugs are refined and get rid of 80% or so of all the pan-killers available at your pharmacy.

The whole thing is absurd anyways as the legalization of drugs for government profit won't ever happen. Not only that, the government wouldn't very likely be engaged in the manufactoring or distribution of the product. For instance; paper. Paper is a legal product and is taxed, but it's created by independent ventures.

Nearly everyone I know that smokes openly admits that it's too expensive, unappealing, and would absolutely quit tomorrow if it were that easy, but are in many cases hopelessly addicted to the nicotine, and are unable to stop.

Plenty (most?) of people drink alcohol socially, in moderation, becasue they enjoy the taste, and some do it to loosen up their inhibitions slightly. Most people who drink alcohol don't do so to the point of intoxication.

You can most certainly discuss Marijuana separately from other hard drugs because as far as I know, it's not addictive, and might present some health benefits. Other drugs are incredibly addictive, and equally damaging to ones health. It's like comparing Water to Beer.

fullmetalfan720

07-16-2009, 09:13 PM

It's like comparing Water to Beer.
Hey, water is much more addictive than beer. If people don't get their water fix, they end up dead.

StarKnightX

07-16-2009, 09:15 PM

Plenty (most?) of people drink alcohol socially, in moderation, becasue they enjoy the taste, and some do it to loosen up their inhibitions slightly. Most people who drink alcohol don't do so to the point of intoxication.

At least half the people I knew in school that drank , or that I know from work , or even others places that I've been have all told me that they think most beer and alcohol tastes like shit but that they enjoy the buzz they get from drinking.

Now I don't believe that that covers the majority of people in any way , as I myself have never drank to the point of being drunk , and I do drink because I enjoy the taste (for the most part) , I'm just posting a counter for the hell of it.

Koggit

07-16-2009, 09:19 PM

does anyone think mj should be illegal? anyone at all?

KingBroly

07-16-2009, 09:35 PM

I'm fine as long as you don't do it in public. People getting high off other people getting high...bad stuff will happen there.

Msut77

07-16-2009, 10:23 PM

elprincipe

07-17-2009, 12:13 AM

We have 50 laboratories of democracy, let's use them.

But that would require that we actually respect the 10th Amendment again. It would be the first time in a long time. Not going to happen. You actually think the Feds would give up that kind of power?

Msut77

07-17-2009, 03:31 PM

Hey spam, do you care to tell all of us why you "don't agree with it"?

spmahn

07-17-2009, 05:32 PM

I've spent three pages now explaining why I don't agree with it, it doesn't actually solve any problems, it just diverting resources in less efficient ways. We already have drug rehab within the prison system, why should establish one outside of it?

We need to stop people from doing drugs in the first place, that's the only way we're going to solve our drug problem in the long run.

fullmetalfan720

07-17-2009, 05:34 PM

We need to stop people from doing drugs in the first place
Good luck with that.

mykevermin

07-17-2009, 06:07 PM

We already have drug rehab within the prison system, why should establish one outside of it?

Because it's cheaper than in-prison treatment.
Because it's more effective than in-prison treatment.
Because prison is one of the easiest places to get narcotics, making successful completion difficult.
Because politicians like to fund prisons to appear to "get tough on crime," but not fund rehab programs so as to avoid appearing to "coddle criminals."
Because not all drug addicts are criminal.
Because mixing low-risk non-violent offenders with any kind of violent offender is a bad idea.
Because the funds aren't there to provide rehabilitation to those incarcerated who want treatment - so it's even more foolish to place more drug addicts there for treatment. Bottlenecking, commence.

Those are just a few reasons why.

spmahn

07-17-2009, 07:19 PM

Because it's cheaper than in-prison treatment.
Because it's more effective than in-prison treatment.
Because prison is one of the easiest places to get narcotics, making successful completion difficult.
Because politicians like to fund prisons to appear to "get tough on crime," but not fund rehab programs so as to avoid appearing to "coddle criminals."
Because not all drug addicts are criminal.
Because mixing low-risk non-violent offenders with any kind of violent offender is a bad idea.
Because the funds aren't there to provide rehabilitation to those incarcerated who want treatment - so it's even more foolish to place more drug addicts there for treatment. Bottlenecking, commence.

Those are just a few reasons why.
Most rehab facilities are essentially like minimum security
prisons anyway, so why not just spend the money to improve the system we already have? It seems to me that it would be cheaper to improve rehab programs in minimum security prisons rather then
establishing seperate facilities that won't be funded anyways. Drug users certainly don't belong in a supermax, but since inpatient rehab facilities would need to be run like a prison to be successful anyways, where's the difference? It also seems to me like politicians and tax payers would be more willing to fund something that sounds like a punishment rather than treatment anyways

Msut77

07-18-2009, 12:37 AM

I've spent three pages now explaining why I don't agree with it

You have spent three pages making posts, some of them could be seen as agreeing with what is called decriminalization.

it doesn't actually solve any problems, it just diverting resources in less efficient ways.

It solves lots of problems, by being more efficient.

It also seems to me like politicians and tax payers would be more willing to fund something that sounds like a punishment rather than treatment anyways

Depends on if there are more people like you in this country than even I thought.
God, I hope not.

spmahn

07-18-2009, 12:49 AM

How is it more efficient? To me it sounds like it would be like instead of having a supermarket where you buy bread, fruits, and vegetables, you have a separate store for bread, a separate store for fruits, and a separate store for vegetables, and then spend all the extra cost of running three separate stores. Instead of having one facility where you're not aloud to leave, and offers punishment, counseling, and education for those who need it, you have a separate facility for punishment, a separate facility for counseling, and a separate facility for education. Where is the efficiency in that?

I also don't know what you mean by "people like me", as lack of compassion for people with problems that they created for themselves pretty much crosses all ideological boundaries. If my hard earned tax dollars have to be spent to rid you of the problem you created for yourself, you should either have to pay it back, or be punished for it. Think of it like the health care "option" Obama is proposing in his health care plan. If you get caught doing drugs and get forced into rehab, and can afford to go to the Betty Ford Clinic, then by all means, but if you can't afford privatized drug rehabilitation, then you go on the socialized plan, which comes to you at a cost which involves you serving hard time as punishment for wasting our tax dollars on your drug problem.

Msut77

07-18-2009, 12:54 AM

How is it more efficient?

Because it saves a lot of money and a plethora of other things like the precious time of law enforcement, eases the burden on the criminal system justice etc., this has been pointed out to you.

you have a separate store for bread

Those are called bakeries.

spmahn

07-18-2009, 01:06 AM

Msut77

07-18-2009, 01:13 AM

but if we're looking at a system like in Portugal, the police are still actively looking for people who do drugs, they just don't go to jail, they go to rehabilitation, so how does it free up the time of law enforcement?

Because they spend their time going after serious dealers and not people growing a pot plant or two or merely possessing.

spmahn

07-18-2009, 01:19 AM

Ok, now we seem to be arguing entirely different points. I long ago said that I didn't care one way or the other about marijuana, do whatever you want with it at this point. What I've been referring to is people doing hard drugs like Heroin, Crack, Meth, etc., which are on an entirely different plain than Marijuana.

Msut77

07-18-2009, 01:24 AM

Ok, now we seem to be arguing entirely different points.

That would only be true if I conceded that you have a point.

Which I don't.

spmahn

07-18-2009, 01:30 AM

That would only be true if I conceded that you have a point.

Which I don't.

Have you run out of arguments that quickly?

Msut77

07-18-2009, 01:31 AM

Have you run out of arguments that quickly?

No, because unlike you I had an argument in the first place.

spmahn

07-18-2009, 01:35 AM

No, because unlike you I had an argument in the first place.

Ok, so now all you have is ad hominem attacks. I'm through here.

Msut77

07-18-2009, 01:38 AM

Ok, so now all you have is ad hominem attacks. I'm through here.

You were done a while ago. About the fifth time you made the same already refuted assertion.

spmahn

07-18-2009, 01:43 AM

Where have any of my assertions been refuted? It seems to me that once I make a point that no one is willing or able to argue, then it ends, and that seems to have happened at numerous point throughout this discussion.

Msut77

07-18-2009, 02:00 AM

Where have any of my assertions been refuted?

In basically every serious reply to one of your posts.

It seems to me that once I make a point that no one is willing or able to argue, then it ends, and that seems to have happened at numerous point throughout this discussion.

It might seem like that to you but I assure you that hasn't been the case.

For example, in post 124 I wasn't talking about just marijuana and I don't think you were making an honest mistake. Either way you ARE the one defending the status quo...

P.s. You do know what a bakery is correct? You do realize they still exist right?

spmahn

07-18-2009, 02:34 AM

You seem to have a difficult time grasping this whole debate concept. Just because you refute my argument and come up with a counter argument, doesn't mean that you're correct and that the argument is over. It continues to go back and fourth after that.

So if in post #124 you aren't just talking about marijuana, then what exactly is it that you are saying? That police should just ignore all drug users and not prosecute anyone on drug charges? Again, even under the Portugese system, this doesn't happen, police still go after the users, they just get rehab instead of jail. If we ignore all drug users, then how do we deal with the people who are hopelessly addicted to harmful substances that they resort to crime and / or violence as a result? You try to say that I don't have a point, but I have no idea what yours is. My points and positions seem pretty clear to me

Decriminalizing drugs removes one of the main barriers that stop many people from using them.

Many people who don't currently use drugs right now may do so if they were more easily available, and there was less of a social stigma, because lots of people do lots of stupid things for no reason at all

Getting the government involved in the production and selling of drugs will do nothing to stop the illegal drug trade because the drug cartels are tantamount to large corporation and will produce and sell the product far more cheaply then the government ever will

The solution to stopping our drug problem is to prevent people from doing drugs in the first place. Since this is nothing more than a pipe dream, the next best solution is to rehabilitate users, and if that has to be done on the taxpayers dime, then the users should have to pay for their indiscretions either through public service or through a sentence in a minimum security prison environment.

I think I've been pretty clear throughout this thread, but let me know if you need me to make anything clearer.

Msut77

07-18-2009, 10:48 AM

Just because you refute my argument and come up with a counter argument, doesn't mean that you're correct and that the argument is over. It continues to go back and forth after that.

For the most part refuting what you say does make one correct.

For example you didn't have much to say in that other thread after I pointed out to you that getting the latest Goosebumps the day it was released was not the only way to judge the effectiveness of libraries.

then what exactly is it that you are saying?

I was referring to drugs besides marijuana. Like I said I do not think that yours was an honest mistake.

That police should just ignore all drug users and not prosecute anyone on drug charges? Again, even under the Portugese system, this doesn't happen, police still go after the users, they just get rehab instead of jail.

In Portugal if a Police Officer sees someone using or possessing they issue a citation and are not allowed to arrest them. It is an entirely different ball game from the US where we have militarized SWAT units going after people for comically tiny amounts of drugs.

If we ignore all drug users, then how do we deal with the people who are hopelessly addicted to harmful substances that they resort to crime and / or violence as a result?

It isn't the same exact thing as ignoring "all" drug users, it is true that not everyone is made to go through rehab but those who need help get help.

Decriminalizing drugs removes one of the main barriers that stop many people from using them.

If anything your approach exacerbates the problem.

The solution to stopping our drug problem is to prevent people from doing drugs in the first place. Since this is nothing more than a pipe dream

You know you keep saying you don't get my points and you think you are making all these awesome arguments but the above shows clearly that the problem is on your end.

the next best solution is to rehabilitate users, and if that has to be done on the taxpayers dime, then the users should have to pay for their indiscretions either through public service or through a sentence in a minimum security prison environment.

A place where rehab is done is no more like a prison than a person is like a potato. And again if prison is paid on my dime all the way I see no reason why rehab shouldn't be.

This is what I mean when I say you just repeat the same garbage ad nauseum.

spmahn

07-18-2009, 11:24 AM

I've yet to see what this "approach" you speak of is.

You again don't understand how a debate works. Just because you refute my argument doesn't mean it's over. I rebut your argument etc. Etc. Until someone has made a strong enough argument that can no longer be refuted.

You say in Portugal, there is still some sort of police involvement, even if it may not be to the extent we have it here. So where exactly do we have less police involvement in all this? They may not arrest drug users anymore, but they're still actively looking for them.

I don't see how my approach would exacerbate the problem. Lenient or non-existent laws against drug
users = more drug users, which is what we want to avoid in the first place. Portugal is not a fair comparison to the United States either, as our drug problem is much worse, and we have them in
much greater supply since the producers have direct access in getting them here.
Even if drug rehab is not akin to prison as you say it is, if our tax dollars need to be speant to rid a person of a problem that they themselves caused in the first place, then there needs to be some sort
of punishment for that person.

True decriminalizaion would not even involve rehabilitation, as that in and of itself is essentially a punishment, or at least it would be perceived that way by the people going there.

And what exactly do you "mean" by my spouting the same "garbage" over and over. You aren't being very clear in your arguments, although I think you're doing that conciously at this point since you're rapiy running out of them.

Msut77

07-18-2009, 11:52 AM

I've yet to see what this "approach" you speak of is.

That would be decriminalization, an emphasis on rehab with the removal of jail time except for smugglers and fairly big time dealers.

What the fuck man?

Just because you refute my argument doesn't mean it's over.

That basically is what refute means.

I rebut your argument etc.

Rebut means a little more than merely making a response, learn the difference.

They may not arrest drug users anymore, but they're still actively looking for them.

What they don't do which is a relatively common occurrence in this country is calling dozens of Law Enforcement or entire militarized units to go after people with comically tiny amounts of drugs. I am just throwing that out as an example, there are many more differences.

I don't see how my approach would exacerbate the problem.

Something else you should learn is that you "don't see" is not the same thing as making an argument.

Lenient or non-existent laws against drug users = more drug users, which is what we want to avoid in the first place.

Decriminalization correlates with less drug use.

Portugal is not a fair comparison to the United States either, as our drug problem is much worse

Portugal had a severe drug problem, they switched to decriminalization and they improved.

Even if drug rehab is not akin to prison as you say it is

Drug rehabs are certainly "like prisons" something you said roughly twenty-three times by dint of the fact that they both have ceilings and doors but other than that no they don't have all that much in common.

if our tax dollars need to be speant to rid a person of a problem that they themselves caused in the first place, then there needs to be some sort of punishment for that person.

No.

True decriminalizaion would not even involve rehabilitation, as that in and of itself is essentially a punishment, or at least it would be perceived that way by the people going there.

That would be distinction legalization and decriminalization.

spmahn

07-18-2009, 12:13 PM

When I say "I don't see", what I mean is "you haven't made clear".

I'd love to see how decriminalzation correlates with less drug use, please show me these studies. All I see are reports on Portugal decriminalizing, but the Time article I got thY information from also admits that our drug problem is much worse than theirs ever was, and that it's an entirely different culture, so their style of decriminalize probably wouldn't work here.

Why shouldn't drug users be punished for being a drain on society?

Msut77

07-18-2009, 12:41 PM

When I say "I don't see", what I mean is "you haven't made clear".

That is how one normally would use it, that isn't the way you are using it.

Why shouldn't drug users be punished for being a drain on society?

Because people shouldn't be punished to make people like you feel better about themselves?

Name one good reason why prison should be free but rehab shouldn't.

I'd love to see how decriminalization correlates with less drug use, please show me these studies.

I can get you a pdf file with lots of nifty charts, it is over 30 pages though.

All I see are reports on Portugal decriminalizing, but the Time article I got thY information from also admits that our drug problem is much worse than theirs ever was, and that it's an entirely different culture, so their style of decriminalize probably wouldn't work here.

Our problem is bad but that doesn't mean we cannot benefit. Portugal still had a severe problem and it is not "entirely" different from the US any way you wish to define the word.

If we are looking at the same TIME article it mentions the successes I am talking about and your response is to rely on the opinion of two guys quoted in the article, who don't really base what they say on anything empirical.

Even they admit however that at the very least drug use did not go up.

spmahn

07-18-2009, 01:02 PM

Prison isn't free, nor is it cheaper than rehab, but people who made bad decisions should have to face some sort of consequence for their actions. Punishing drug users shouldnt be done to make anyone feel better, it should be done to punish them for using drugs.

Sweden spends three times the EU average on drug controls, and is consistantly tightening their laws. As a result the have 1/3rd of the EU average for drug use. In many parts of the Middle East, drug use and even possesion is punishable by death, as a result they have almost none.

Obviously the Middle Eastern policy is extreme, but Sweden does it right, and theirs is the system I think we should copy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden

VipFREAK

07-18-2009, 01:33 PM

I'm a bit late to this thread I guess... only read 2 pages...

its a tough cut, but...

No it's fucking not... cut public transportation. It goes fucking no where and on top of that they don't enforce people paying before getting on...

Let's review the benefits of the legalization of murder.

1. Lower daycare costs due to dead children.
2. Smaller classroom sizes due to dead children.
3. Better teachers due to incompetent teachers being killed.
4. More courteous commutes due to angry drivers killing each other.
5. Fewer police required due to murders not being illegal. As an aside, cops could kill assault victims to keep their caseloads manageable.
6. Quicker divorces.
7. Recycling centers could finally pay good money for spent brass.
8. Ninjas.
9. Better wait staff due to the ability to tip with knives and bullets.
10. Better patrons due to wait staff having the ability to poison asshole clients.
11. Easier ways to get to the front of the ER.
12. Easier ways to unlock inheritance.
13. Social security and medicare insolvency solved overnight.

and my personal favorite...

14. Intentionally left blank.

What are the negative effects of legalizing murder?

Yah know... I'm all for being a cynic too. But soon there after all the obvious idiots are gone you'll get people thinking there similar to the Boondock Saints... Then what...?

Msut77

07-18-2009, 01:33 PM

Prison isn't free, nor is it cheaper than rehab

Rehab is absolutely cheaper than prison.

but people who made bad decisions should have to face some sort of consequence for their actions.

No.

Punishing drug users shouldnt be done to make anyone feel better, it should be done to punish them for using drugs.

Circular logic is circular.

Sweden spends three times the EU average on drug controls, and is consistantly tightening their laws. As a result the have 1/3rd of the EU average for drug use.

For that to mean anything you would have to define "drug controls" (do they include only things like pee tests while ignoring prison costs etc.?) and if we are using average drug use for the EU as a baseline it should be pointed that Greece spend comparatively little on the drug problem and it ranks even lower in drug usage.

In many parts of the Middle East, drug use and even possession is punishable by death, as a result they have almost none.

Maybe they should start doing more drugs.

Koggit

07-18-2009, 03:59 PM

VipFREAK

07-18-2009, 04:04 PM

Koggit

07-18-2009, 04:12 PM

It's amazing how many times I hear the "marijuana should be legal" argument. (most of the time from people that actually use it) lol

I have no problem with it other than I won't do it because of the same reasons I don't smoke.

I think even Weeds Tv Show would make that argument.

using an herb does not necessarily mean smoking it, by the way. i hate the idea of inhaling fumes from combustion, i only vaporize (pulling hot air over the herb to create a perfectly healthy vapor, like aroma therapy) or eat edibles. both of which actually use the herb more efficiently.

mykevermin

07-18-2009, 04:40 PM

Most rehab facilities are essentially like minimum security
prisons anyway, so why not just spend the money to improve the system we already have? It seems to me that it would be cheaper to improve rehab programs in minimum security prisons rather then
establishing seperate facilities that won't be funded anyways.

None of this is even remotely true.

Drug users certainly don't belong in a supermax, but since inpatient rehab facilities would need to be run like a prison to be successful anyways, where's the difference?

Prove this claim and show your work.

It also seems to me like politicians and tax payers would be more willing to fund something that sounds like a punishment rather than treatment anyways

This is a purely cynical Machiavellian argument; let's just be concerned about how the argument is framed, rather than what works.

Yuck.

VipFREAK

07-18-2009, 05:26 PM

using an herb does not necessarily mean smoking it, by the way. i hate the idea of inhaling fumes from combustion, i only vaporize (pulling hot air over the herb to create a perfectly healthy vapor, like aroma therapy) or eat edibles. both of which actually use the herb more efficiently.

I say smoke since it's the "easiest and fastest" I suppose. In any other form don't you need a lot more for the same effect?

Koggit

07-18-2009, 05:56 PM

I say smoke since it's the "easiest and fastest" I suppose. In any other form don't you need a lot more for the same effect?

I could rave all day long about how awesome vaporizers are, but the short answer is not at all -- vaporizers conserve herb far better than smoking. The temperature for combustion is too high, it destroys some 'active ingredients'. Vaporizers just heat some air up and you pull it over the herb, releasing the goodies without destroying any. Here's a video that compares both the efficiency & nastiness of Vaping vs Smoking... he gets about 5 times more hits from the vaporizer, and the kleenex filter speaks for itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5ZrSQ0A-KQ

Not only do you get more out of the herb by vaporizing instead of smoking, but you can use the already-vaped leftovers for baking... there's still some goodness left in there. It'd be much more efficient than smoking even if you couldnt do that, though.

VipFREAK

07-18-2009, 06:12 PM

Sadly, it's still not going to get me to start using the stuff.

I'm sure my friends would thank you for trying though. lol

They'd probably want you to try to get me to like RTS games too...

spmahn

07-18-2009, 06:22 PM

We (America) spend $4 billion a year enforcing marijuana laws and it's a $112 billion a year industry, estimated to (hypothetically) bring in $31 billion a year if taxed... so the govm't would have an extra $35 billion and the violent drug cartels would have $112 billion less. Every. Year. We'd also have 600,000 marijuana offenders (25% of the prison population) removed from correctional facilities and able to become productive members of society -- not to mention saving about $7 billion a year by not providing their housing/food/guards/etc in prison. $42 billion a year.

This argument is based on the assumption that people will stop purchasing marijuana illegally if it is made available legally (probably won't happen if the taxes are high enough) and that all of the 600,000 you claim are in prison for marijuana charges are there only on marijuana charges, and wouldn't otherwise be in jail for other crimes they committed in conjunction with the drug charges, which I doubt to be the case, but maybe I'm wrong, and if I am please inform me better.

As for everything else, I'll get back to you after I get home from work.

Koggit

07-18-2009, 06:23 PM

I wasn't trying to convince you to start or anything, just saying rationale against smoking is not rationale against what's being smoked -- I'm anti-smoking and pro-mj, smoking is unhealthy but there's nothing wrong with the herb.

This argument is based on the assumption that people will stop purchasing marijuana illegally if it is made available legally (probably won't happen if the taxes are high enough) and that all of the 600,000 you claim are in prison for marijuana charges are there only on marijuana charges, and wouldn't otherwise be in jail for other crimes they committed in conjunction with the drug charges, which I doubt to be the case, but maybe I'm wrong, and if I am please inform me better.

As for everything else, I'll get back to you after I get home from work.
blah blah..

People get med cards in green states and purchase their stuff for street prices legally ($40/eighth) and the dispensaries make a killing... its so insanely profitable for them to sell at street prices, everyone prefers to go legal, plus their stuff is usually way better (which is why any great mj is called "medical grade" even if the strains are unrelated)... you can bet your ass if everyone could purchase from legal dispensaries nobody would purchase on the street.. at least, no more-so than people buy underground beer.

i dont have the exact stats on mj convictions / prison populations & i have a life so feel free to research that yourself. you seem to be arguing just for the sake of it and i'm not really into wasting my time.

VipFREAK

07-18-2009, 06:57 PM

I wasn't trying to convince you to start or anything, just saying rationale against smoking is not rationale against what's being smoked -- I'm anti-smoking and pro-mj, smoking is unhealthy but there's nothing wrong with the herb.

I know, I was joking around more than anything else. I know it's something that would make me "fit in" a bit more. Standing outside having everyone exhale and the wind pick it up and blow it in my direction, isn't exactly fun for the only non smoker... As for what being smoked, it's all the same to me. There's a distinct reason you cough and putting a flame anywhere near you're lungs doesn't quite compute to me.

spmahn

07-24-2009, 01:13 AM

My apologies for not getting back to this sooner. Unfortunately I have been preoccupied with family and work commitments, and haven't had much more than fleeting time for this, and this is the last I'm going to talk about this subject because I'm tired of it.

For outpatient drug rehab to be successful, the person who is receiving the rehabilitation will actually have to WANT to be rehabilitated, which in many instances, especially when forced by the law, is not going to be the case. If drug addicts are under the jurisdiction of a board of doctors and social workers, rather than in prison, what happens when the drug user does not want to cooperate with the program? If they just end up in prison if they refuse treatment, than what is the point really?

People who do drugs recreationally are going to see forced rehab as a punishment, not a reward. If the forced rehab however is not actually forced, (and by that I mean applied forcibly, as in in jail or a supervised living environment), than how will it actually work?

RAMSTORIA

07-24-2009, 03:01 PM

well they may have hammered something out...

The California State Senate finished passing 31 bills early Friday morning to close a $24.2 billion gap in the state budget. Added to $921 million in reserves, state lawmakers claimed to have solved a $25.3 billion budget problem.

The State Assembly was in caucus Friday morning but is expected to vote on the package later in the day.

The final package includes $15.6 billion in cuts, $3.9 billion in revenue “solutions,” $3.9 billion in additional borrowing, $500,000 in fund shifting and $1.2 billion on one-time savings from deferral of June 30, 2010 state worker paychecks until July 1.

The package completes work to resolve a more than $60 billion state budget deficit since Jan. 1, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said before the vote.

“There are a whole host of decisions on the cuts side that pain me greatly — deep cuts to education, to health and human services and to local government. Given the circumstances, I am grateful for all the things we were able to save,” Steinberg said in a press release.

Major spending cuts include:

$6.1 billion in K-14 education funds (the number includes $700,000 million from community colleges)
$2 billion in higher education funding for the University of California and California State University systems
$1.3 billion from the state worker furloughs per month through June 20, 2010
$1.2 billion from corrections
$1.3 billion in Medi-Cal cuts
$1.7 billion from local redevelopment agencies
$334 million in developmental services programs
$528 million in CalWORKS, the state welfare program
$226 million in the In Home Supportive Services Program and
$124 million in the Healthy Families Program.

The package protects CalWORKS from elimination, reduces time limits for aid and cuts cash assistance for beneficiaries who do not meet program requirements. It maintains the state home care program but imposes major new fraud prevention measures.

Enrollment in Healthy Families, the government health care program for children, was already frozen by the state July 17. The new cut may prompt the state to drop some children from the program.

Revenue solutions include $1.7 billion from increasing payroll withholding by 10 percent, $610 million from accelerating personal income and corporation tax tables to boost 2009-10 collections and $1 billion from the sale of a portion of the State Compensation Insurance Fund.

Additional borrowing includes $2 billion following suspension of Proposition 1A, passed by California voters in 2004. The move will divert 8 percent of property tax revenue from cities, counties and special districts to the state General Fund. The state will have to repay the amount — with interest — within three years.

The package also includes borrowing $1 billion in transportation revenue from local governments to pay for debt service on transportation bonds. This money must be paid back with interest over a 10-year period.

Fund shifting includes $100 million from an oil drilling lease project off the Santa Barbara coast.

Government reform legislation approved as part of the budget fix allows the state to sell the Orange County Fairgrounds, but limits authority to sell off properties such as San Quentin Prison unless the deal is considered good for taxpayers.

The package allows the state to sell, lease or repurchase certain properties and enter into long-term leases for others but slaps on a requirement for annual reporting of surplus properties.

The budget package eliminates, consolidates or reforms more than 10 boards and commissions. The Integrated Waste Management Board and the Bureau of Naturopathic Medicine are singled out for elimination.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/07/20/daily91.html?t=printable

it hasnt passed all the way yet, but if it doesnt... well ya know.

im shocked that deferring paychecks for 1 month will save 1.2 billion... thats mind boggling, does the state really have 1.2 billion in payroll each month? thats 24,000 workers making 50k a year (simple math not fact). amazing...

ugly ugly deals though, shifting funds, possibly privitizing prisons, oil drilling thrown in (and only $100 mil to show for it). what will be interesting is how the state looks in 5 years. will the cuts still be around? will the spending finally level off and adjust to natrual inflation?

brighenne

07-24-2009, 03:22 PM

VipFREAK

07-24-2009, 04:06 PM

possibly privitizing prisons

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/images/smilies/idea.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4sRgHdkWkk

RAMSTORIA

07-24-2009, 04:11 PM

There are easily at least 24,000 state workers. All the counties and superior courts are state workers.

Either way, I'm glad I just graduated from UC Berkeley before all this hit, money was bad enough when I was there. It's pretty crazy when a top ten school has to have furloughs...

yeah i dont doubt there are that many, its just not a number you ever hear about so it caught me off guard.

and i hear that, i graduated from uc davis in 2005 and it was expensive as all hell then, i couldnt imagine just starting there now.

KingBroly

07-24-2009, 09:51 PM

So...what type of fine, upstanding citizens will the state of California be letting out of their prison system? I.E. what kind of crimes have these individuals committed in the past? I'm sure it's out there, or will be known soon enough.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-25-2009, 09:23 AM

RAMSTORIA

08-10-2009, 02:03 PM

As California businesses and local governments shed droves of jobs this past year, the state of California’s payroll ballooned by thousands of new hires.

In the 12 months that ended in June, the state enlisted 3,600 additional workers — a 0.7 percent gain, according to the state Employment Development Department.

California’s private industry slashed about 760,000 jobs — a 6-percent loss — during the same period. Local governments shrunk by 1.5 percent.

“Obviously not every hire that the state makes is unreasonable, but as a trend it’s a total indication of the problem that we have that the state doesn’t live within its means,” said Scott Macdonald, spokesman for Californians Against Higher Taxes.

As San Bernardino County’s unemployment rate soars to 13.6 percent — with more than 17,000 searching for work in the High Desert — critics are deploring state growth that seems to defy a state cash-flow crisis amid a brutal recession.

After hiring 17,791 more state workers in 2006-07, the state added 27,659 more by the middle of 2009, according to the state legislative analyst.

To help close a swelling budget deficit, the Legislature raised $12.5 billion in taxes in February and more recently agreed on seizing and borrowing nearly $4 billion from local governments.

“We can’t continue to overspend, and then turn around and look at taxpayers and businesses and say, ‘Now you have to pony up,’” Macdonald said.

Assemblyman Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia, provided a critical vote to pass the budget with the tax hikes, arguing the deal was necessary to resume strapped government services and pass a budget in both houses. But he said he will push to pare down the state payroll.

“I think it’s wrong that the state gains hiring at a time when everyone else is having to make massive layoffs,” Adams said. “We’ve asked our state employees to take furlough days, but we still have a large amount of obligations to everyone employed by the state, and it’s obvious to me that the state can’t afford that right now.”

Adams said more positions could be eliminated from state and county education offices and unnecessary social programs.

California spent about $30 billion on compensation and benefits for its 350,000 employees last fiscal year, according to the legislative analyst. That’s an average of more than $85,000 per employee. Last year labor accounted for more than 29 percent of state expenditures.

State government has begun making some cutbacks. The state lost about 600 executive branch jobs over the past year.

The state trimmed more than 1 percent of its workforce by eliminating 5,000 positions, some vacant, and is looking to cut another 2,000 positions. All state workers took a 14-percent pay cut through mandatory furlough days.

The state has hired more workers in part because there’s been an increase in the need for public services, said Jim Zamora, spokesman for the Service Employee International Union Local 1000, the largest state employees union.

The state Employment Development Department, for example, is reportedly looking to hire 1,500 more employees to accommodate the surging jobless population, he said.

“If you’re General Motors and you’re selling fewer cars, well you don’t need to build as many cars so you’re probably going to cut staff,” Zamora said. “In the state of California while certainly revenues are down, just as many people are being sent to prison as before. Just as many people come into the DMV office — the needs haven’t changed.”

Some state employees are funded through federal money or department revenue, and some state workers can’t be cut directly by the Legislature, Zamora said.

The University of California system — which employs about 180,000 state workers — makes its own hiring decisions. If a school has been awarded a federal grant for stem-cell research, for example, officials could choose to hire more researchers just as they raise tuition rates for students, Zamora said.

Zamora said he supports state workers sharing in financial sacrifices.

But there are plenty of other places burdened by government waste outside the payroll, such as too many high-priced state contracts with outside consultants, he said.

From 2003 to 2007, the state population grew by 5 percent — but the state budget swelled by 31 percent, according to Macdonald.

“While people are scrimping and saving, the state has raised taxes $12.5 billion, and we know when the Legislature comes back on the 17th (of August), there are a number of legislators that have said they are pushing for more taxes,” Macdonald said. “It’s no wonder that there is a lack of faith in state government.”

A recent Public Policy Institute of California poll revealed public approval of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sunk to an all-time low — 28 percent. The Legislature’s is even worse, at 17 percent.

As of Saturday, the State Personnel Board Web site advertised 1,932 state job openings, including 74 state jobs available in San Bernardino County.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/common/printer/view.php?db=vvdailypress&id=13776

had to bump this thread with this story. bold added for emphasis.