POT's gonna save the economy! Are they serious?

[FeebMaster]

ah. so you're an anarchist.

Basically, but that doesn't mean the War on Drugs isn't big government at its best.

It'd be nice for once to be able to argue against a law, any law, without people crying about anarchy. No background checks for gun purchases? Anarchy! People taking mind altering substances? Anarchy! Against conscription? Anarchy! Smoking in a restaurant? Anarchy! No freebies for illegal immigrants or anyone else? Anarchy! Get a job without proving you're a red blooded American? Anarchy! Pseudoephedrine in NyQuil? Anarchy!

It gets old.

[Calif Cowgirl]

Honestly, as conservative as I am...which is VERY...I am on the fence on this one. I really don't know what the effects of pot are, since I have never been stoned...tried it 3 times in my whole life of almost 40 years, but I guess I didn't inhale properly cause it never affected me. Anyway, I don't know anything about pot, so I can't argue for or against. Is it really any worse than alcohol? Alcohol can make some people angry/dangerous...does pot have the same effect? lol...I visualize potheads smoking joints and eating scooby snacks and being very mello.
The Native Americans have smoked it forever...whether to get high or for medicinal purposes, I'm not sure.

[marinejcksn]

I'm actually in favor of decriminalizing all drugs. The DEA is corrupt and a complete failure and you can't legislate morality. Prohibition did more to grow Organized Crime and La Cosa Nostra then anything else before in America. Think about it logically; not only would the government be able to reap HUGE taxes if they taxed drugs the way they tax cigs and booze, but it would also deal a huge blow to the criminal aspect of the drug trade.

I don't like drugs and being that I'm in the Marines I'm not allowed to do them even if I had wanted to. But I don't think there's anything wrong at all with someone doing them if they don't harm anyone else in the process. Anyone who's serious about liberty and laissez-faire should oppose the idiotic notion of a government babysitter telling you what you can or can't do with your personal time and your body.

[wilbur]

Making it easier to get, and making it more "acceptable" in the eyes of society will make sure that a lot of those kids who are waffling on the decision on whether or not to smoke pot will now have another thing pushing them to start.

This isn't about the "lazy" people. This is about enabling it for more people to start. A bit part of what stops a lot of people is the fear of doing wrong. How are parents going to tell their kids it's wrong now, when the law says it's ok?

The kink in this notion is that nations where you are able to buy it and sell it somewhat legally (NL), stats show that about the same or less people actually use, when compared with the US.

Drug war is simply a bad investment. We get nothing out of it, except an inflated government... and the same amount of drugs and users on the streets.

[Gingersnap]

are you saying that smart people are able to control their abuse of pot? Or are you saying that Smart ambitious people are immune to pleasures and escapism?

I'm saying that people have had unrestricted access to all kinds of mind-altering substances from jump street and the entire planet didn't become Stoner City.

You're trying to frame this as a moral issue and I don't believe it is. There isn't anything inherently wrong or immoral in indulging in some chemical escapism from time to time. Problems happen when we label one form of chemical escapism as good (wine, single malt scotch) and another as bad (weed). This obscures the practical downsides (and upsides) of whatever the substance may be.

Behavior is what we should be looking at instead of maybe-causes. Bad, dangerous, or neglectful behavior needs to be addressed regardless of the cause.

[noonwitch]

I'm actually in favor of decriminalizing all drugs. The DEA is corrupt and a complete failure and you can't legislate morality. Prohibition did more to grow Organized Crime and La Cosa Nostra then anything else before in America. Think about it logically; not only would the government be able to reap HUGE taxes if they taxed drugs the way they tax cigs and booze, but it would also deal a huge blow to the criminal aspect of the drug trade.

I don't like drugs and being that I'm in the Marines I'm not allowed to do them even if I had wanted to. But I don't think there's anything wrong at all with someone doing them if they don't harm anyone else in the process. Anyone who's serious about liberty and laissez-faire should oppose the idiotic notion of a government babysitter telling you what you can or can't do with your personal time and your body.

I'm not in favor of decriminalzing/legalizing all drugs, although decriminalizing possession of small amounts of cocaine and heroin is probably a good idea, so that police efforts can focus on distribution. But I do agree with you about how the War on Drugs has corrupted law enforcement. I find forfeiture laws, where the government confiscates all the property of the accused before he or she has been convicted, to be very troubling in a nation that heralds the claim "innocent until proven guilty". That type of law leads to corruption-it has the law enforcement and prosecutors targeting people for their assets, not necessarily their level of criminality.

[biccat]

I'm no fan of government regulation of either, but it's not something I generally care to argue about.

It'd be nice to go a week without seeing crap like this: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-101...eadlinesArea.0

Just curious if you were an anarchist or just in favor of limited government according to the Constitution. It seems you're the former.

noonwitch:
The problem with your argument is that forfeiture laws do not target the accused, they target the property used in the drug trade. The argument is that the property used to manufacture, transport, or sell drugs can have no defense against its culpability (for lack of a better term) in the drug trade. Individuals can have a variety of defenses, but the property has none.

While this does lead to certain abuses, such as unwilling farmers who have areas of their fields seized because of the actions of third parties, it is probably one of the best ways of eliminating the drug trade. I would agree that in general arresting users does little to curb the business of the drug trade.

[Zeus]

I don't think legalizing it will save the economy, but it could bring some new revenue into local governments, along with saving some law enforcement dollars for investigating and prosecuting more serious crimes.


Michigan just passed a medical marijuana law that essentially makes it legal for anyone who has a chronic medical condition. Not only that, it allows for retroactive medical opinions/prescriptions-meaning, if you get busted, you can get a doctor to state that you need pot for your court hearing. The law makes it de facto legal for most people old enough to have arthritis. They might as well make it legal for everyone over 21 and get the tax money from it's sale.

The Tax angle is always promoted as good reason for legalization. The fallacy behind the proposal is just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's nontaxable.

I'm of the opinion the Govt and certain private enities don't want marijuana legalized because it is virtually impossible to control the who grows it, who distributes it and price structure . That's primary even in front of the BS disseminated about marijuana such as It's the gateway drug etc etc

[marinejcksn]

I'm of the opinion the Govt and certain private enities don't want marijuana legalized because it is virtually impossible to control the who grows it, who distributes it and price structure . That's primary even in front of the BS disseminated about marijuana such as It's the gateway drug etc etc

I agree with your thoughts on this Zeus but I'd like to take it a little further. Consider this scenario:

The Government suddenly announces that marijuana is no longer an illegal substance. While those who currently enjoy using marijuana are then free to grow/cultivate their own weed, isn't it a logical conclusion that large corporations (like the tobacco industry) would begin commercial marijuana crops and package it as a mass market product?

Now, one arguement is that it would be next to impossible to stop people from growing their own pot, thereby defusing the possible taxes the Government would take in by collecting the high percent of the purchase price (like cigarettes or alcohol) on commercially grown pot, right?

But think about this again logically for a moment. Anyone who wants to circumvent paying the tax on cigarettes is free to pursue the following process:

Purchase their own tobacco seed, sow the seeds into tobacco beds, water the plants at least an hour a day, wait several weeks for the plants to grow several inches, dig the plants out of the beds, plant them in fertile soil, weed and spray for insects, cut the plants when the crop is ready for harvest, spear it onto lathes, hang it in a high ventilated area, wait 4 months until it's cured, strip the leaves off the stalks and finally make their own hand-rolled cigarettes.

But realistically; who is going to do all of that, rather then just buy their pack of Marb Reds or Newports from a local store and pay that tax to Uncle Sam?

Weed would be the same way. Some stoners would grow their own crop, most would prefer the overall ease of simply walking into a 7/11 and buying a pack of joints.

[Zeus]

I agree with your thoughts on this Zeus but I'd like to take it a little further. Consider this scenario:

The Government suddenly announces that marijuana is no longer an illegal substance. While those who currently enjoy using marijuana are then free to grow/cultivate their own weed, isn't it a logical conclusion that large corporations (like the tobacco industry) would begin commercial marijuana crops and package it as a mass market product?

Now, one arguement is that it would be next to impossible to stop people from growing their own pot, thereby defusing the possible taxes the Government would take in by collecting the high percent of the purchase price (like cigarettes or alcohol) on commercially grown pot, right?

But think about this again logically for a moment. Anyone who wants to circumvent paying the tax on cigarettes is free to pursue the following process:

Purchase their own tobacco seed, sow the seeds into tobacco beds, water the plants at least an hour a day, wait several weeks for the plants to grow several inches, dig the plants out of the beds, plant them in fertile soil, weed and spray for insects, cut the plants when the crop is ready for harvest, spear it onto lathes, hang it in a high ventilated area, wait 4 months until it's cured, strip the leaves off the stalks and finally make their own hand-rolled cigarettes.

But realistically; who is going to do all of that, rather then just buy their pack of Marb Reds or Newports from a local store and pay that tax to Uncle Sam?

Weed would be the same way. Some stoners would grow their own crop, most would prefer the overall ease of simply walking into a 7/11 and buying a pack of joints.

Growing marijuana isn't as hard or involved as growing tobacco. For example Pot will grow almost anywhere,not so for tobacco.

If growing tobacco was easy don't you suppose at $4.50 - $8 a pack someone hasn't tried it already.

I agree a lot would go with convenience but more would grow their own. Grow your own gives you more control over quality/potency and lowering cost and escaping taxation .