Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am shocked at this discussion during these perilous economic times. Do you realize how many thousands of jobs would be lost if this were legalized? Police, jail sheriffs, judges, lawyers-come on here! And think of the underlying industry. Please won't someone think of the children of all these penny ante drug dealers you've just put out of work. What are you, a heartless Republican?

Greebynog wrote:"Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I feth, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?"

Bill Hicks speaks the truth.

That he does.

Too bad neither party here believes it.

youngblood wrote:Who says that doing drugs doesn't harm anyone else. Think about if a father watched TV every day after he got home from work just to relax a while, the kids would have a good chance of thinking of him as a dispassionate jerk off.

Equally applicable.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

youngblood wrote:Who says that doing drugs doesn't harm anyone else. Think about if a father watched TV every day after he got home from work just to relax a while, the kids would have a good chance of thinking of him as a dispassionate jerk off.

Equally applicable.

That's true, I'm just saying, once you're high, you're high. I've never shaken off a buzz. I have turned the TV off before though. Apples and oranges mate.

Not really.

If you spend the same amount of time doing both, you have pretty much the same effect. Of course smoking weed is worse if you spend more time doing it than watching TV, but that should go without saying.

Maybe you have less flexibility smoking weed, but who cares? There's a lot of other pointless activities you could do that require a larger time commitment than that.

Besides, restricting something from the general population on account of it consuming time that a parent could spend with their child is ridiculous.

The point is that you would have to be a frothing idiot to think that's a healthy environment for a child. I wonder how much money would have to be spent to regulate weed if it were legal? What type of regulations would have to be put in place?

Of course it's not the best environment for a child if their parents are permanantly high, same goes for drunk, asleep, eating, whatever. Again, not good cause for it to be illegal.

If you're going for an economic argument, what about all the taxable income from marijuana sales? Plus farmers have a great new cash crop to grow. Hemp is a great source of clothing material, paper and fuel too. Not to mention all the money saved by the police and judicial system, plus the removal of non-violent, normally law abiding people from the prison population. What good can come from throwing a pot smoker in jail? They're highly likely to pick up worse habits in there.

Yeah I'll have to concur that lots of drug offenders just get worse when they spend time in jail. Just watch Lockup on MSNBC, that will give you an education on what goes on behind bars.

youngblood wrote:The point is that you would have to be a frothing idiot to think that's a healthy environment for a child. I wonder how much money would have to be spent to regulate weed if it were legal? What type of regulations would have to be put in place?

It wouldn't be any more unhealthy than an environment where a kid's dad spends all his spare time playing World of Warcraft, though. Irresponsible parents are always going to raise a child poorly. You can't ban every recreational pastime on account of people ignoring their children to go screw around.

(Also, I wouldn't think regulation would cost any more than prohibition. If it did, weed would almost certainly be taxed anyways.)

OK, let's say the government taxes the hell out of it, what's the incentive for people to buy through legal routes. What's stopping the ongoing black market of it. What the US government legalizes and puts a 30% tax on it and all of the sudden all dealers and suppliers report themselves so they can now have taxable income? I highly doubt that. People need to realize that a highly taxed drug it not going to a very attractive drug. Now one could use alcohol or cigarettes as an example of highly taxed goods that still have demand. The difference is that the price of a sixer of Budweiser (highly taxed Bud mind you) is still 5.99 while a few grams of weed would be $30 or $40 (not really sure what it would be). Again, not a realistic situation as the prices would be so high. Growers would have the hell taxed out of them too. Again, it's just not a viable option regardless of "right or wrong".

I don't think pot smokers should be thrown in jail. I'm just saying that controlling it is not a cheap or easy thing. More trouble than it's worth for the government I'm sure.

Easy solution
1. moderate taxation costs outweighed by the positive risk minimization to the logistical chain and the buyers.
2. Big corporate guys win. Bob the bud seller is not going to compete with Archer Daniels Midland. Cost savings in a big way.
3. Shoot people who sell it without paying taxes. Remember boys and girls, Dracon was a wimp.

Pot smokers want an easy life, do you think people enjoy meeting some shady bloke in a dodgy part of town to pick up some weed? I sure as hell know I don't. The dealers wouldn't report themselves, legal dispensaries a la California would be set up instead. Or just have it with the cigarettes in shops. If you're buying legally, the quality is guaranteed, you know you're not getting sand and crap in your pot, and yu have a choice of strains and strengths etc. Certainly prefferable to the illegal option. Of course there still would be criminal activity involving weed, as there is with alcohol, cigarettes, DVDs and batteries, but it would be significantly lessened.

Why would prices necessarily rise? Are prices higher in California dispensaries?

Edit: What Frazz said. Minus the shootings...

youngblood wrote:OK, let's say the government taxes the hell out of it, what's the incentive for people to buy through legal routes. What's stopping the ongoing black market of it. What the US government legalizes and puts a 30% tax on it and all of the sudden all dealers and suppliers report themselves so they can now have taxable income? I highly doubt that. People need to realize that a highly taxed drug it not going to a very attractive drug. Now one could use alcohol or cigarettes as an example of highly taxed goods that still have demand. The difference is that the price of a sixer of Budweiser (highly taxed Bud mind you) is still 5.99 while a few grams of weed would be $30 or $40 (not really sure what it would be). Again, not a realistic situation as the prices would be so high. Growers would have the hell taxed out of them too. Again, it's just not a viable option regardless of "right or wrong".

Eh? Sounds like you're confusing the street price with the cost of manufacturing.

Weed's not any harder to grow than tobacco is, the cost of production would be similar. It's true that the government couldn't just tax it to infinity, but it could still be grown on farms, processed in plants, taxed an amount sufficient to cover the cost of regulation, and sold in a store for a lot less per gram than the cost of growing a plant in your basement and selling it on the street. It's the economics of scale. Thus, people would buy it from the cheaper, and legal, sources and drug dealers would no longer have a market for that product.

Otherwise you'd still have bootleggers everywhere, making whisky.

youngblood wrote:OK, let's say the government taxes the hell out of it, what's the incentive for people to buy through legal routes. What's stopping the ongoing black market of it. What the US government legalizes and puts a 30% tax on it and all of the sudden all dealers and suppliers report themselves so they can now have taxable income? I highly doubt that. People need to realize that a highly taxed drug it not going to a very attractive drug. Now one could use alcohol or cigarettes as an example of highly taxed goods that still have demand. The difference is that the price of a sixer of Budweiser (highly taxed Bud mind you) is still 5.99 while a few grams of weed would be $30 or $40 (not really sure what it would be). Again, not a realistic situation as the prices would be so high. Growers would have the hell taxed out of them too. Again, it's just not a viable option regardless of "right or wrong".

I don't think pot smokers should be thrown in jail. I'm just saying that controlling it is not a cheap or easy thing. More trouble than it's worth for the government I'm sure.

In that case, why doesnt everyone buy booze or cigarrettes from bootleggers? sure, we dont think alcohol and cigarretes are overly expensive, but thats because thats the price we've always lived with. it might take awhile, but peiople would eventually buy 99% from legal vendors. Why risk getting arrested for a 5$ savings? I'm no pothead myself, but if it was legalized, i'd probably become a recreational user, and i wouldnt mind paying the price it would cost. I've done it before and it was one of the most fun experiences of my life.

youngblood wrote:Who says that doing drugs doesn't harm anyone else. Think about if a father smoked weed every day after he got home from work just to relax a while, the kids would have a good chance of thinking of him as a dispassionate jerk off. I don't think that drugs could be regulated well enough for (all of) them to be legal. Let's ignore large crimes like murder as an result of drug use (since it doesn't really happen), but does a druge user add a whole lot to others? Again, I'm coming at this from the viewpoint of if parents were using with kids in the house.

Actually from experience dealing with high people, a father that smoked up every so often would probably be alot of fun. High people are hilarious.

Greebynog wrote:
Why would prices necessarily rise? Are prices higher in California dispensaries?

Edit: What Frazz said. Minus the shootings...

Totally different with medical since the government doesn't tax it heavily. Don't know the prices though. Do you?

Frazzled

Greebynog

Orkeosaurus

spartanghost

HIVEMIND

mamma!

I just remembered that last night I was watching an episode of Holmes on Homes that involved a busted up former pot house. The house was based in Quebec I believe.
http://www.makeitright.ca/makeitright/Holmes_Media/view_episode.php?season_id=68&episode_id=333

That house was frightening, but was interesting to see the lengths that illegal growers will go to.

youngblood wrote:

Greebynog wrote:
Why would prices necessarily rise? Are prices higher in California dispensaries?

Edit: What Frazz said. Minus the shootings...

Totally different with medical since the government doesn't tax it heavily. Don't know the prices though. Do you?

Nope, hence me asking. It is a different thing though, agreed.

I tried to download what I belive is a very interesting link on this subject,but alas I was unable,however for anyone who may be interested,hop over to youtube and enter "Jello Biafra grow more pot",I found it very informitive.
For the record I am 100% in favor of legalizing marijuana(for reasons far to leaghthy to list ,but many of wich can be seen in the above link)and I havnt smoked weed in years.

youngblood wrote:Who says that doing drugs doesn't harm anyone else. Think about if a father smoked weed every day after he got home from work just to relax a while, the kids would have a good chance of thinking of him as a dispassionate jerk off. I don't think that drugs could be regulated well enough for (all of) them to be legal. Let's ignore large crimes like murder as an result of drug use (since it doesn't really happen), but does a druge user add a whole lot to others? Again, I'm coming at this from the viewpoint of if parents were using with kids in the house.

The same for cigarettes, drink, gambling, high fat foods and the shopping channel.

If some kind of self-abuse (ho ho) proved to be a major social harm, the government should do research to find out if the harm would be reduced by banning the activity or restricting it in some other way.

What happened with cannabis is that racial panics, associated with Chinese and Mexican immigration were conflated with drugs, and the USA got everyone to pass anti-drug laws. There's no evidence they work to restrict the use of drugs. In fact, like the rather similar Prohibition Amendment, they have made illegal drugs a highly profitable industry while criminalizing a large segment of the population.

It's no good to just say "I don't think blah blah". We have to do research to find out the facts.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

youngblood wrote:OK, let's say the government taxes the hell out of it, what's the incentive for people to buy through legal routes. What's stopping the ongoing black market of it. What the US government legalizes and puts a 30% tax on it and all of the sudden all dealers and suppliers report themselves so they can now have taxable income? I highly doubt that. People need to realize that a highly taxed drug it not going to a very attractive drug. Now one could use alcohol or cigarettes as an example of highly taxed goods that still have demand. The difference is that the price of a sixer of Budweiser (highly taxed Bud mind you) is still 5.99 while a few grams of weed would be $30 or $40 (not really sure what it would be). Again, not a realistic situation as the prices would be so high. Growers would have the hell taxed out of them too. Again, it's just not a viable option regardless of "right or wrong".

Eh? Sounds like you're confusing the street price with the cost of manufacturing.

Weed's not any harder to grow than tobacco is, the cost of production would be similar. It's true that the government couldn't just tax it to infinity, but it could still be grown on farms, processed in plants, taxed an amount sufficient to cover the cost of regulation, and sold in a store for a lot less per gram than the cost of growing a plant in your basement and selling it on the street. It's the economics of scale. Thus, people would buy it from the cheaper, and legal, sources and drug dealers would no longer have a market for that product.

Otherwise you'd still have bootleggers everywhere, making whisky.

You still have quite a few illegal distilleries, moonshiners, and bootleggers selling cigarettes. I don't know for a fact but I would put money on there being someone rolling down the interstate in a truck right now loaded with cigarettes from North Carolina, headed for DC or New York City.

I personally believe all drugs should be legalised. Prohibition does not work. Didn't work for alcohol, hasn't worked for drugs. The US currently has one of the highest per capita incarceration rates in the world. We even beat China. Majority of those inmates are in for drug or drug related crimes. We have spent Billions, possibly trillions on the War On Drugs. It has failed spectacularly.

The US could save a fortune on our prison sytem, getting rid of the DEA, putting a lot of lawyers out of work (always a plus), raise additional revenue if taxed (again a perfectly fair tax, if you don't want to pay it, don't do the drugs.)

The government really has no business what a person puts into their own body. If a person wants to wreck their life, let them. Don't put in "clean needle" programs, or any other government programs. Let people do what they will. If they overdose, that was their decision to do the drug in the first place.

Also legalization would have the added benefit of social darwinism." Oh, your sisiter's cousin's, next door neighbor's kid overdosed on heroin? poor lad. he shouldn't have been stupid enough to take it in the first place. "

Bottom line the government should let people put whatever they want to into their own body. But that does not mean that the rest of us should have to pay for that persons treatment for addiction.

Greebynog wrote:I'm yet to hear one convincing argument against the legalization of marijuana, anyone care to proffer one?

Pot heads are rarely productive members of society. It's an addictive substance that significantly reduces capability, has longterm consequences that are much more than a smokescreen, and is a cheap alternative to actually improving your situation in real ways. It parallels well to alcohol, which accounts for many thousands of deaths every year, millions of destroyed lives, and a significant cost to the taxpayer.

The only difference being we can't retroactively ban alcohol and pot is banned now.




As for the people that think making drugs illegal doesn't work.. Well I suggest you all do a little bit of research back to the 70's, 40's and 19th century. Virtually every drug substance that was made illegal after a period of legality had its use severely reduced when it was made illegal. Just because there is no modern parallel (because people understand what drugs are now and why they are to be outlawed) doesn't mean it "doesn't work".

The same argument could be stated about the war on car accidents. Why do we even still enforce speed limits? People die anyway, clearly it isn't working.

Mango wrote:I personally believe all drugs should be legalised. Prohibition does not work. Didn't work for alcohol, hasn't worked for drugs. The US currently has one of the highest per capita incarceration rates in the world. We even beat China. Majority of those inmates are in for drug or drug related crimes. We have spent Billions, possibly trillions on the War On Drugs. It has failed spectacularly.

The US could save a fortune on our prison sytem, getting rid of the DEA, putting a lot of lawyers out of work (always a plus), raise additional revenue if taxed (again a perfectly fair tax, if you don't want to pay it, don't do the drugs.)

The government really has no business what a person puts into their own body. If a person wants to wreck their life, let them. Don't put in "clean needle" programs, or any other government programs. Let people do what they will. If they overdose, that was their decision to do the drug in the first place.

Also legalization would have the added benefit of social darwinism." Oh, your sisiter's cousin's, next door neighbor's kid overdosed on heroin? poor lad. he shouldn't have been stupid enough to take it in the first place. "

Bottom line the government should let people put whatever they want to into their own body. But that does not mean that the rest of us should have to pay for that persons treatment for addiction.

Personally I feel that a strategy of harm reduction is almost always better than outright prohibition. Plus, I figure there are pot users out there who want to smoke just as much as I want to go down to the range and shoot. Therefore I can't in good conscience be against that.

For the sake of argument though: Do you not think one of the duties of government is to protect us from things that might harm us? Also, from what I read the addictiveness of marijuana is still a matter of debate.

Also, from what I read the addictiveness of marijuana is still a matter of debate.

I'm pretty sure medical journals have a leg up on High Times in this matter. Evolution and global warming are matters of "debate" too. Funny how a political issue can turn any ubiquitous scientific finding into a contentious debate.

Grignard,

The duty of government is to provide a loose frame work of laws that allow a society to function provide for basic services, such as a mechanism to enforce those laws(police), emrgency services (fire and rescue), protection from outright aggression (the military for international matters, police for domestic). The government should allow for the maximum freedom possible while maintaining an orderly functioning society. (ideally). The government should not be responsible for protecting people from their own stupidity.

Alcohol is legal. The majority of the population uses it responsibly. Same with firearms. There will always be idiots. The government should be concerned with protecting the responsible people from the idiots, not protecting the idiots from themselves. If someone drives while intoxicated, and becomes a threat ot others, lock them up. If someone shoots someone, lock them up or execute them.

post edited to indicate it was addressed to grignard.

Mango wrote:The duty of government is to provide a loose frame work of laws that allow a society to function provide for basic services, such as a mechanism to enforce those laws(police), emrgency services (fire and rescue), protection from outright aggression (the military for international matters, police for domestic). The government should allow for the maximum freedom possible while maintaining an orderly functioning society. (ideally). The government should not be responsible for protecting people from their own stupidity.

Alcohol is legal. The majority of the population uses it responsibly. Same with firearms. There will always be idiots. The government should be concerned with protecting the responsible people from the idiots, not protecting the idiots from themselves. If someone drives while intoxicated, and becomes a threat ot others, lock them up. If someone shoots someone, lock them up or execute them.

That is a libertarian interpretation of the duty of government. Actually, not truly that, as a pure economically liberal point of view would be to privatize emergency and protective services.

You can also view society as a sort of collective organism, where you could draw an analogy of individuals making up collective organism of the state, much like cells make up your body. Therefore the government would want to ensure the health and morality of the "organism" by insuring that all the units of society work toward a common goal.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Greebynog wrote:I'm yet to hear one convincing argument against the legalization of marijuana, anyone care to proffer one?

Pot heads are rarely productive members of society.

This statement is based on....? (Just remember annecdotal evidence is not evidence)

ShumaGorath wrote:It's an addictive substance that significantly reduces capability, has longterm consequences that are much more than a smokescreen, and is a cheap alternative to actually improving your situation in real ways.

Again, care to provide any facts to back up your argument? Marijuana, as I've stated numerous times is not addictive.

ShumaGorath wrote: It parallels well to alcohol, which accounts for many thousands of deaths every year, millions of destroyed lives, and a significant cost to the taxpayer.

There has never been a single death from marijuana. The lethal dose is far more than any human could consume.

ShumaGorath wrote:The only difference being we can't retroactively ban alcohol and pot is banned now.

Why is banning alcohol desirable? Yes, it damages people and society. What kind of world would it be if we couldn't do anything that wasn't good for us? Enjoy your daily celery.

ShumaGorath wrote:As for the people that think making drugs illegal doesn't work.. Well I suggest you all do a little bit of research back to the 70's, 40's and 19th century. Virtually every drug substance that was made illegal after a period of legality had its use severely reduced when it was made illegal. Just because there is no modern parallel (because people understand what drugs are now and why they are to be outlawed) doesn't mean it "doesn't work".

Criminalzing people for doing something relatively harmless is ridiculous. Yes, usage goes down under prohabition, but other far worse things take hold. Organized crime for one.

ShumaGorath wrote:The same argument could be stated about the war on car accidents. Why do we even still enforce speed limits? People die anyway, clearly it isn't working.

Because speeding endangers other people. I would have thought that was obvious.

I prefer the idea that the governments job is to protect its citizens from things that it can't protect itself from.

People are stupid and can't really make decisions for themselves collectively. People do not easily resist addictive substances.


Therefore addictive substances should be made illegal by the government.