Legalizing weed to create more tax revenue.

[quote name='mykevermin']EtOH? Can't you just say "hooch" like the rest of us plebes?[/quote]

It's a medical euphemism:

shitfaced drunk alcoholic = History of ethanol abuse
shitfaced drunk alcoholic who also does smack and crack on the side = History of polysubstance abuse
OMG horribly morbidly obese person who doesn't even fit in our CT scanner = Elevated body mass index
There's a ton more...

Funny looking kid (FLK) is actually a commonly used medical slang term in pediatrics.

Fetal alcohol syndrome makes kids look funny (funny meaning unusual or strange; see here: http://depts.washington.edu/fasdpn/htmls/fas-face.htm) and retarded: It's a leading cause of mental retardation! Don't drink and get knocked up... especially in the 1st trimester when you don't yet know you are pregnant...
 
I don't think I've ever heard a stoner say they wouldn't want weed legalize. I also don't think I've ever heard them NOT talk about why it should be legal. This thread is just another one of those examples. lol
 
I'm disappointed in you Myke. That is your best example? The same could be said of alcohol, as with just about any other argument against weed. The only argument that comes to mind against weed that's actually worse than cigarettes or alcohol is the higher tar content by weight; that's easily offset by the fact you don't need to smoke a pack (or two) a day of blunts. Honestly, I think that's the only negative thing you can attribute to smoking pot. I think I heard that prolonged usage can decrease fertility, but that's on the scale of decades with chronic chronic usage... and really not a bad thing. :lol: Compare that to meth or heroin where the first time can actually kill you...

I've never met someone who was both stoned and angry; I've met plenty of raging drunks. I know it's anecdotal evidence, but as a wise man once told me, "the plural of anecdote is data." ;)

Any negative scenario like starving your kids or crashing a vehicle is a cause of ABUSE or incompotence, not the drug itself. In large amounts, alcohol causes liver damage and can be fatal short and long term. In large amounts, smoking causes cancer and can be fatal short and long term. In large amounts, weed... ??? I've never heard of anyone in the history of forever ODing on weed, but I'd speculate you could have long term lung issues (for what my non PHD opinion is worth). If you use any of these substances, you don't automatically beat your kids or fall over dead. Alcohol doesn't stimulate the "beat wife" region of the brain; men beat their wives because they're worthless scum with small penises.

Smoking a joint after work is like going to the bar for a drink or two. You'll feel relaxed and have a good time. Going into work stoned is like going to work drunk. Being high 24-7 is akin to drinking to the point of liver failure; it sure isn't healthy, but it's not the drug's fault you have no moderation.

People seem to lose all semblance of reason when you mention legalizing weed. It's not like people will automatically start walking around in a foggy haze all day. Sure, some people would, but they probably already do. It's not illegal to be drunk all day and there are people that do it. However, it is illegal to drink and drive and most companies already have policies against alcohol and drug usage.


I think the biggest fear we should have is the increased metabolism. We're already a nation of fatasses; what will happen when people start munching uncontrollably? :lol: Why don't we instead outlaw fast food? When you eat a ton of it and don't exercise you get fat; therefore, it's in everyone's best interests that we close down fast food chains because 30% of the nation can't monitor their own health. Isn't it the government's job to hold our hands and protect us from ourselves?


[quote name='mykevermin']I was thinking of the health-care costs of making sure little johnny doesn't end up suffering from malnutrition, or misses attending school, because daddy was too busy being high.

An overlydramatic example, yes - but I'm simply suggesting that indirect effects are not solely emotional in nature.[/quote]
 
I always hear people saying, "Pot is not worse than alcohol". True - but alcohol only affects the one participating and I have yet to see a case of someone getting drunk without drinking just because they were in the same room.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']I always hear people saying, "Pot is not worse than alcohol". True - but alcohol only affects the one participating and I have yet to see a case of someone getting drunk without drinking just because they were in the same room.[/quote]

Bullshit. You've forgotten about drunk drivers? They definitely have the potential to affect, aka kill others.
 
[quote name='BigT']Funny looking kid (FLK) is actually a commonly used medical slang term in pediatrics.[/quote]

I've worked with pediatric surgeons for ten years and NEVER heard that term used. Just because you work with degenerates, please don't lump the rest of us with you assholes.

As for weed, the biggest issue is the prison system. The problem is that the prison system has become Big Business and Big Business doesn't give up without a fight. They love pot dealers because they add to overall prison numbers without causing too much trouble.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Bullshit. You've forgotten about drunk drivers? They definitely have the potential to affect, aka kill others.[/QUOTE]

not to mention contact high is a myth. in order to get high from being around people smoking when youre not, youd have to be locked in a tiny air tight closet or geo metro for a good 20 minutes, with heavy smoke. then maybe youd get a little high.
 
Contact high isn't a myth. You can't get it at concerts but you most certainly can get high walking into a house where people have been smoking.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Contact high isn't a myth. You can't get it at concerts but you most certainly can get high walking into a house where people have been smoking.[/QUOTE]
Kinda like how you can get a contact high from walking into a place where people have been smoking cigarettes/cigars/hookah/etc, right?

Oh, wait.
 
When/if pot is legalized all the stoners will find out the hard way that smokers are the new leper, not being able to smoke it anywhere, probably nowhere if those bullshit efforts to make it illegal to smoke in your own home come to pass. It would also be funny when stoners go to the store to buy some pot and discover it has quadruple the tax they just slapped on RYO tobacco. And you certainly won't be able to grow it in your home because parental groups will counterlobby to keep at least that particular element illegal because kids could theoretically access it easier. If pot was legalized, it would cost a fucking fortune to buy it, more than when it's illegal. And if the government could make a pile of cash from taxes on it, you can be damn sure they won't let anybody grow it unless they are a medical institution.

Legalizing pot would be great...but it's just a few decades too late. Any variant of smoker is now human trash in the minds of the "majority." Might as well legalize masterbating in public. You can do it, but everyone else will go out of their way to shame you for it. In the end you'd only be able to smoke in your own homes, which is what everyone does anyway, so the effort to legalize pot is pretty much worthless.
 
@crunchberry -- We might just be sitting in our homes but at least the threat of jail sentences and/or fines won't be hanging over our heads. That's the biggest thing about the legalization movement. It's stupid that someone that possesses over an ounce should be subject to a felony charge.
 
I still don't agree with or even understand the "times are tough" argument and that we need the tax revenue. So, it must be logical to re-criminalize when times are better because we 'cause we don't need the revenue anymore ? What the fuck kind of rationale is this to play with freedom ? This kind of flippant regard for personal liberty makes me more than ill, it scares me and makes me cling to my guns and my god.
 
The pro-weed lobby is using the downturn to advance their agenda. It's called being smart. Appealing to the need to keep the prison population down didn't work because White America likes to keep negros in check. You should know all about that, bmull. I mean those slaves do get uppity when they see other colored folk coming up.
 
[quote name='depascal22']The pro-weed lobby is using the downturn to advance their agenda. It's called being smart. Appealing to the need to keep the prison population down didn't work because White America likes to keep negros in check. You should know all about that, bmull. I mean those slaves do get uppity when they see other colored folk coming up.[/QUOTE]

ok.........
 
i've never heard anybody give any valid reason for keeping weed illegal..

i've never smoked but for sure it should be legal.
 
It should have never become illegal in the first place. Anybody interested should check up on William Anslinger and the Laguardia Commission Report.

I'd guess that the savings in taxpayers money in that it would create less work for: cops, judges, DA's, PD's, constables, jail guards, wardens, prison administrators, court administrators, court security personnel, sherriffs, court reporters, probation officers, legal staff....JUST TO NAME A FEW.

fuck the income, think SAVINGS!!
 
W.R. Hearst had more to do with making pot illegal that William Anslinger.

Oh, and Ramstoria, I wouldn't expect you to get or understand what the fuck I'm talking about. Weed culture is completely different for blacks and for whites. I've known white friends that openly smoke weed in public and never worry about getting busted while many black friends have served jail time for simple possession. I just combined bmull's fervent radical conservatism with his ignorance of everything that's not on CMT to make a joke about his probable wish for slavery to come back to America. I mean, that's what the War on Drugs boils down to. The War on Drugs was and always be there to keep Negros in check. Why do you think the prison population is mostly black? It can't possibly be because blacks are more prone to violence, drug abuse, or any other bullshit explanation you people have for this.

It's not the rich white kid that gets busted for doing drugs, it's the black dude that gets busted for selling the shit even though he was never really given a chance. But then again, I'm just making excuses for all the poor dumb Negros in America. Everything I say is just liberal propaganda and shouldn't be taken at any sort of face value. My service in the military means absolutely nothing because I was just a Communist spy looking for ways to make America less safe.
 
[quote name='depascal22']@crunchberry -- We might just be sitting in our homes but at least the threat of jail sentences and/or fines won't be hanging over our heads. That's the biggest thing about the legalization movement. It's stupid that someone that possesses over an ounce should be subject to a felony charge.[/QUOTE]

That's a solid reason. This country has more people in jail than anywhere else in the world. Not just for pot, but there's other stuff too that shouldn't lead to jail time anymore. Too much money is spent on three hots and a cot for way too many "criminals." I know people that almost went to the slammer because their kid got caught with pot in the house, which they were truly unaware of, not the "That shit ain't mine!" excuse.
 
Portugal changed all drugs offences (including heroin and cocaine) to administrative penalties on July 1st, 2001. DEA press release if you're interested.

Results after 8 years:
  • Fears of drug tourism were completely unfounded.
  • Without the fear of prison time, citizens declined drug use because of "social stigma".
  • Drug use has decreased in absolute terms.
  • Drug use among 7-9th graders dropped from 14.1 to 10.6%, a drop of almost 20%.
  • Among 10-12th graders, use increased the 1st year of decriminalization and has dropped every year since.
  • Drug use increased among 20-24 year olds (when asked if they'd used "any" drug), which coincides with alcohol use among those that reach the age of consent in countries still practicing prohibition.
  • Among 16-18 year olds, marijuana use almost doubled while heroin use almost halved.
  • Those enrolled in drug treatment increased 147%. Opponents point to this as an problem, but empirical evidence suggests a strong majority of those enrolled would not have received treatment before legalization.
  • HIV infection rates among drug users has dropped. The year before prohibition ended, more people with AIDS in Portugal were drug users than not. In 2000, 1400 surveyed drug users were HIV-positive. The last survey counted less than 400. Hepatitis B and C also dropped significantly among drug users.
  • In 2000, 281 people died from opiate use in Portugal. In 2006, that number was 133.
  • In 2000, the total number of drug related deaths was almost 400. In 2006, 281.
  • England has 6 times the cocaine use that Portugal does (in % terms).
  • Political opposition to prohibition has been virtually annihilated.
This is a great read, the kind of thing that absolutely crushes any anecdotal argument against drug legalization.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've noticed most European countries seem to be more wiling to try new things in regards to the law. Here in the US we seem to prefer "staying the course" as it were.
 
Good point JJ, "staying the course" just like the Titanic.

Great info in that post speedracer, I had no idea Portugal did that with such successful results. It does seem that the judicial branch (especially USSC jurisprudence) just simply refuses to look to international law, even as a source of persuasive (non-binding) authority.
 
[quote name='depascal22']
Oh, and Ramstoria, I wouldn't expect you to get or understand what the fuck I'm talking about. Weed culture is completely different for blacks and for whites. I've known white friends that openly smoke weed in public and never worry about getting busted while many black friends have served jail time for simple possession. I just combined bmull's fervent radical conservatism with his ignorance of everything that's not on CMT to make a joke about his probable wish for slavery to come back to America. ...
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but what the fuck man - that was totally uncalled for. You've either completely flipped your lid, or you can't get past your prejudiced and irrational feelings about me, personally, to even understand my viewpoint on the legality of weed or what the fuck radical conservatism is. I think we both have a good idea of what constitutes radical conservatism, and under more careful consideration, instead of emotional breakdown, you may want to reconsider your statement, or joke, or whatever the hell just ejaculated from your mouth that bypassed your brain.

You know the funny thing about humor is that there's always a grain of truth inherent in the joke. That's what makes it funny. Unfortunately for you, and me apparently, is that I'm not laughing about your thoughts on a wish to return to slavery. That's some seriously fucked up shit and a completely inappropriate attack.

But then again I guess you should get a pass because whitey's been keeping you down for so long. But, then again, it's only those radical conservative whiteys like me, right? No Liberal whitey would ever give you lip service and keep you in your place so you could keep voting for them for the last 40 years, right ?

You dealt the race card. Now play your fucking hand, bitch.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Portugal changed all drugs offences (including heroin and cocaine) to administrative penalties on July 1st, 2001. DEA press release if you're interested.

Results after 8 years:
  • Fears of drug tourism were completely unfounded.
  • Without the fear of prison time, citizens declined drug use because of "social stigma".
  • Drug use has decreased in absolute terms.
  • Drug use among 7-9th graders dropped from 14.1 to 10.6%, a drop of almost 20%.
  • Among 10-12th graders, use increased the 1st year of decriminalization and has dropped every year since.
  • Drug use increased among 20-24 year olds (when asked if they'd used "any" drug), which coincides with alcohol use among those that reach the age of consent in countries still practicing prohibition.
  • Among 16-18 year olds, marijuana use almost doubled while heroin use almost halved.
  • Those enrolled in drug treatment increased 147%. Opponents point to this as an problem, but empirical evidence suggests a strong majority of those enrolled would not have received treatment before legalization.
  • HIV infection rates among drug users has dropped. The year before prohibition ended, more people with AIDS in Portugal were drug users than not. In 2000, 1400 surveyed drug users were HIV-positive. The last survey counted less than 400. Hepatitis B and C also dropped significantly among drug users.
  • In 2000, 281 people died from opiate use in Portugal. In 2006, that number was 133.
  • In 2000, the total number of drug related deaths was almost 400. In 2006, 281.
  • England has 6 times the cocaine use that Portugal does (in % terms).
  • Political opposition to prohibition has been virtually annihilated.
This is a great read, the kind of thing that absolutely crushes any anecdotal argument against drug legalization.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf[/QUOTE]

I posted about this in mid March and not many seemed to care very much. Must be too much reading for stoners...

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217854



But at least there is some sense coming from some parts of the Obama administration:

http://http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124225891527617397.html


White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs'
Kerlikowske Says Analogy Is Counterproductive; Shift Aligns With Administration Preference for Treatment Over Incarceration

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.

In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues.

"Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war with people in this country."
Click to expand...
 
I'd lessen penalties, but I don't trust corporate America with weed if it were fully legalized. All they'd have to do is bring suitcases of money to Washington, and then...

They'd use every last dollar to raise tariffs, run small growers out of business, patent varieties of weed, mass-market it with flavors like bubble gum, make "low thc" joints loaded with carcinogens, then create an RIAA-like group to protect their interests at everyone's expense.

All this would drive people underground to grow crops and sell joints cheaper without tax, and the cycle starts all over.
 
I can't believe we agree on something bmulligan. Hell, that report even blows my self-indulgent rant about heroin and cocaine out of the water.

I just can't see a political path through the federal government that will get us closer to decriminalization. I think our only real hope is for a state (go Arnold!) to do it and challenge the feds to do something about it.

In similar news, Vicente Fox is now onboard with legalization: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/05/13/mexico.fox.marijuana/
 
Even if marijuana was legalized (Which I have a hard time believing that it will nationally) there'd still be the illegal selling and possession of it. There'd just be a legal way for you to purchase it. The drug dealers and people who were caught/sent to prison before that happens wouldn't automatically be given a get out of jail free card, unless the Governor of each and every state granted a lot of pardons.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']he drug dealers and people who were caught/sent to prison before that happens wouldn't automatically be given a get out of jail free card, unless the Governor of each and every state granted a lot of pardons.[/QUOTE]

Assuming they hadn't committed any other crimes (illegal gun possession, violent crimes, money laundering, etc.), why wouldn't the drug dealers and users go free?
 
The bill would have to cover previous offenders, which it doesn't seem like it does. If they were to be let out, the Governor of California in this case would have to pardon them.

Now tell me this: Would you want to be the politician to tell your constituents that you're letting out a whole bunch of prisoners? I don't think you would.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']The bill would have to cover previous offenders, which it doesn't seem like it does. If they were to be let out, the Governor of California in this case would have to pardon them.

Now tell me this: Would you want to be the politician to tell your constituents that you're letting out a whole bunch of prisoners? I don't think you would.[/QUOTE]
A bunch of people who shouldn't have been imprisoned, you mean. You're acting like it'll be murderers being released.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Assuming they hadn't committed any other crimes (illegal gun possession, violent crimes, money laundering, etc.), why wouldn't the drug dealers and users go free?[/QUOTE]

Unless some retroactive immunity provision accomanies any decriminalization bill (which they usually do in clear-cut doctrinal changes like the large-scale decrimninalization of controlled substances); the new law wouldnt change the fact that Joe Defendant still possessed weed in 2007, when it was illegal.

The following is not legal advice:
Possession of a small amount (
 
Legalization vs. Decriminaliztion

Legalization

Legalization is the removing of prohibitions or laws against something that is currently illegal. Victimless crimes, such as the use of illegal drugs, are often the subject of legalization.

The US government's major argument against the legalization of marijuana is that alcohol and tobacco have significant risks associated with them, so why legalize marijuana and add a third drug to the current list of legal threats?

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) supports the development of a legally controlled market for the sale of marijuana where users could purchase it from a safe, legal and regulated source.

Decriminalization
Decriminalization is the reduction or ending of criminal penalties for certain acts. Decriminalized acts are no longer crimes, but they may still be the subject of regulation.

US Congress disagrees with passing a version of legalization on the federal level, and therefore, will not decriminalize the drug. The War on Drugs media campaign is focused on showing teenagers that marijuana can hurt young people academically, physically and emotionally.

Economics is NORML’s major argument for the decriminalization of marijuana. The criminal justice system uses a large portion of its budgets arresting, prosecuting, sentencing and imprisoning marijuana users and dealers. If these behaviors were no longer criminal, then the criminal justice system would not have to arrest those violating marijuana laws. This would cause a reduction in the amount of money spent by these government agencies.
Click to expand...
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall06/Panzer/legal.html
 
Legalization would be such a huge economic stimulus. Pot is a 36 billion dollar industry and it's completely untapped by our government. I actually wrote a shitty paper on this a few months ago if anyone cares to read it:

Marijuana was recently said to be America’s number one cash crop, and it’s illegal. In such a time of economic recession how can our government allow such a resource to go untapped? Overall US marijuana distribution is a 36 billion dollar industry. The legalization of marijuana would keep non violent offenders out of prisons, create millions of jobs, and stop the flow of money from entering the hands of criminals. Studies have proven that marijuana is non addictive and lacks many of the health hazards that perfectly legal drugs contain. A recent 2005 study has shown that over 15,000 people die a year as a result of alcohol use, and another 440,000 people die each from cigarette use in the US; not a single person has died directly from the use of marijuana in over 1000 years of known use.

Now in 2009 with states like California often defying federal prohibition of the substance the legal line of marijuana use is growing thinner, it seems that now marijuana has attained a state of social acceptance. I only see it as a matter of time before our government, who for 40 years prohibited marijuana and put millions in jail over the use of it might just legalize it for economic gain.

Today arrest totals for possession of marijuana far exceeds the total number of all violent crimes combined. The tax money you pay to your government every year is partly going towards a cause that puts millions of innocent offenders in jails; it is also spent building new prisons because all the non violent offenders are taking up the room that should be used to keep the violent and dangerous criminals off the streets.

Thousands of Americans have secure paying jobs due to the tobacco industry; Marijuana although illegal is a bigger cash crop than tobacco and would therefore create more jobs for Americans. So why is marijuana illegal? Does the US government wish for so many cities to maintain a 10% unemployment rate? There’s absolutely no logic to the illegalization of marijuana.

Remember that 36 billion dollars spent on marijuana I mentioned earlier? Guess where that’s going? To violent drug dealers who are using the money to fight against your own country. There is a war on drugs currently going on in Mexico, The US Drug Enforcement Agency against the marijuana suppliers in Mexico. A large percentage of marijuana in the US is being imported from Mexico, very often when someone buys marijuana in the US the money they spent ends up trickling down to the violent drug dealers in Mexico. All of the violence could end if the substance was just leagilized, the drug dealers would be put out of business because it would be available from our government and the violence would end because there would be no need for a war.

In conclusion there really are no negatives consequences for the legalization of marijuana. If people want violent offenders on the streets, millions unemployed, and a war to continue than by all means go ahead and support the illegalization of marijuana, but if you know that marijuana should be legalized for the better of our country, now is the time to act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top