...it and produce it themselves? There has been thoughts and talk of legalizing and taxing. If the idea is on the table, why not bypass the middlemen (who would most likely be a tobacco company like Philip Morris) and have the state be the grower, and producer all in one. The land is there, the man-power is definitely there. Everything is already in place. Time magazine ran a story back in March about California legalizing and taxing. Right now it is California's biggest cash crop at 18 billion per year. If it were legalized and taxed, the projected tax revenue would be 1.3 billion per year in revenue. Again, if this option is on the table, then why give Philip Morris 16.7 billion? Just like a state run lottery, the state would be able to control everything from start to finish. There would be no concessions to a big tobacco lobbyist. What would the downside of this be as compared to a program that collects just tax? This isn't a legal or illegal question. It's a question about what would happen next, and how to fully maximize profits for the state.
menacing gorilla. I'm not from California, and I haven't touched pot in years. ( well once in Amsterdam back in August, but that didn't count). Anyhow, you are off topic. It wasn't an ethics questions. It was a question about how to maximize profits. If you want to sigh, then do so at Democratic state assemblyman Tom Ammiano- the original idea was his.
menacing gorilla. I'm not from California, and I haven't touched pot in years. ( well once in Amsterdam back in August, but that didn't count). Anyhow, you are off topic. It wasn't an ethics questions. It was a question about how to maximize profits. If you want to sigh, then do so at Democratic state assemblyman Tom Ammiano- the original idea was his.