That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard comrade. How much money is alcohol losing the government, eh? Governments are going to make money hand over fist on marijuana. They wouldn't be entertaining the thoughts of legalizing it if they wouldn't.
Well first I commented on the bureaucracy of creating more government. Never said one word about money for profit. They do a piss poor job of managing our money anyways.
Washington government isn't making nearly the same money as Colorado. Washington put the liquor control board in charge of developing the laws. The liquor control boards job is to limit who, what, where, and when liquor and now weed can be sold, used, etc. hence one of the reasons I said Washington'a law is a joke.
Colorado put their department of revenue in charge and is making money left and right.
As to alcohol look at the liquor sales and profit margins between Washington and California. Californias liquor is considerably cheaper than Washington and they make more money on it.
And it is still a federal crime don't forget that. Because weed is federally illegal the states could get in a lot of trouble if they federal government decided to crack down on it regardless of what one administration said they would or would not do. Hence the statement of decriminalize it. Once decriminalized, if a state wanted to take action they could based on the will of their voters and state government.
Remember a state may enact stricter laws than the federal ones but not more lax laws unless it is built in to the states constitution or other major document.
Hence the 9th court of appeals having control over the gun & CPL laws on the west coast. However Washington states constitution allows for the citizens to bear arms for defense of himself , or the state and thus the courts ruling having little effect on the state of Washington.
(Just an example of how a state can have a legally more lax law than the federal standard)
Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states: “[t]he right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk