I am just wondering what would happen if Singapore ever were to go the below route?
This is what is happening to the State of California that is in the red by about $38 Billion.
also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, is a California ballot proposition which is on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot as an initiated state statute.
Proposition 19, if approved by voters, will legalize various marijuana-related activities, allow local governments to regulate these activities, permit local governments (but not the state government) to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorize various criminal and civil penalties. Proposition 19 was certified for the November statewide ballot on March 24, 2010. The official proponents of the measure are Richard Lee and Jeffrey Wayne Jones. Tax Cannabis 2010 is the official advocacy group for the initiative.
Medical marijuana is already legal in California, due to the enactment of Proposition 215 in 1996. California's voters rejected a previous ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in 1972, when 1972's Proposition 19 was rejected by a margin of 66-33%.
According to the State of California analysis, the bill will have the following effects.
Persons over the age of 21 may possess up to one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption.
May use marijuana in a non-public place such as a residence or a public establishment licensed for on site marijuana consumption.
May grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet for personal use.
Local government regulation
Local government may authorize the retail sale of up to 1 ounce of marijuana per transaction, and regulate the hours and location of the business.
Local government may authorize larger amounts of marijuana for personal possession and cultivation, or for commercial cultivation, transportation, and sale.
Allows for the transportation of marijuana from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county, without regard to local laws of intermediate localities to the contrary.
Local taxes and fees
Allows the collection of taxes specifically to allow local governments to raise revenue or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation.
In the time leading to 2010, California's state government's budget deficit has grown to be the largest of all American states. The California legislature has estimated that taxing the previously untaxed domestically grown $14 billion marijuana market would produce $1.4 billion a year, Taxing marijuana, supporters say, could be a smart way to help alleviate pressure on the state budget.
According to the California Legislative Analyst's Office, the following fiscal impact would result from the bill.
Result in significant savings to state and local governments, potentially up to several tens of millions of dollars annually due to reduction of individuals incarcerated, on probation or on parole.
Cells currently being used to house marijuana offenders could be used for other criminals, many of whom are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.
Reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system, providing the opportunity for funds to be used to enforce other existing criminal laws. The RAND Corporation has found that law enforcement costs for marijuana enforcement are approximately $300 million a year.
Potential increase in the costs of substance abuse programs due to speculated increase in usage of marijuana, possibly having the effect of reducing spending on mandatory treatment for some criminal offenders, or result in the redirection of these funds for other offenders.
The measure could potentially reduce both the costs and offsetting revenues of the state's medical marijuana program as adults over 21 would be less likely to participate in the existing program as obtaining marijuana would be easier, thus making use of existing medical marijuana program unnecessary.
There would be a reduction in fines collected under current state law but a possible increase in local civil fines authorized by existing local laws.
The cumulative effect on fines is largely unknown.