Legalize Marijuana?

PhiPsiRuss · #1 11-30-2003, 09:53 PM

I say "Yes", and tax it silly.

DeltAlum · #2 11-30-2003, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by russellwarshay
I say "Yes", and tax it silly.

Agree.

James · #3 11-30-2003, 10:17 PM

I was going to post a new thread asking: Are drugs the big problem? Or are the laws against drugs the big problem?

Look at the big mess in prohibition . . .

However I agree, legalize pot and tax it like cigarettes . . .

Maybe we can take a lot of people off more harmful anti anxieties and antidepressants.

bethany1982 · #4 11-30-2003, 10:26 PM

I agree with the legalizing part, but I question the ability to tax it. Taxation would go hand in hand with regulation, which involves more government and they already screw up most of what they do. How will you tax it? Will those who grow their own be expected to report production for taxation? Will pot be grown on large, regulated farms? Will those who fail to report become criminals? Legalize it yes, but don’t let government run wild.

DeltAlum · #5 11-30-2003, 10:34 PM

Legalize it and the big corporations will run all the little guys out of business.

It's easier to tax a few big guys than a bunch of little ones.

bethany1982 · #6 11-30-2003, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Legalize it and the big corporations will run all the little guys out of business.

It's easier to tax a few big guys than a bunch of little ones.

You're probably right. Is that really what we need? I'd say no to the tax idea. But I'm a libertarian at heart. Let the little guy grow his own without government involvement.

Love_Spell_6 · #7 11-30-2003, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Legalize it and the big corporations will run all the little guys out of business.

It's easier to tax a few big guys than a bunch of little ones.

i agree

Kevin · #8 11-30-2003, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by russellwarshay
I say "Yes", and tax it silly.

The only good argument I've ever heard to keep it illegal is what it would do economically to those in the law enforcement community. Think of how many folks make their livings keeping this illegal. Prison guards, DEA, cops..

On the other hand, it's costing ridiculous sums of money to keep it illegal. I don't know of a single person who couldn't get it if they really wanted it.

For the records, I've never touched the stuff in my life. I also don't see the harm in it.

PhiPsiRuss · #9 11-30-2003, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
The only good argument I've ever heard to keep it illegal is what it would do economically to those in the law enforcement community. Think of how many folks make their livings keeping this illegal. Prison guards, DEA, cops..

Think about how much safer our streets would be if those resources were used against violent criminals? Locking such people up carries an economic benefit as well.

AGDee · #10 11-30-2003, 11:43 PM

Not sure whether I'd be for it or against it, I simply don't bother trying to figure it out because it isn't going to happen, except maybe for medicinal purposes. The reasons I say this are:

1) It's almost illegal to smoke cigarettes anywhere but in your home or car.. as they crack down more and more on this, I don't see them adding a new legal substance. Heck, they are trying to figure out how to tax foods that are high in fat and simple sugars!

2) Too difficult to measure "intoxication" if someone is driving under the influence of marijuana. There's no breathalyzer equivalent. Results of a urine test take too long to get someone off the road right away and don't prove that the person was intoxicated while driving since it stays in your system for 30 days (longer if you're overweight since it's stored in fat cells).

3) New studies show more harmful effects all the time. Smoking one joint is equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes as far as damage to the lungs

4) As noted by ktsnake, drug busts are funding an awful lot of local police departments in everything they get to impound and then sell in auction.

5) I don't see a big corporation taking this on as a business given the huge lawsuits holding companies liable for health related problems caused by the products they sell.

I just don't see it happening, except possibly for medicinal purposes in which case it is usually in the form of a pill.

Dee

DeltAlum · #11 11-30-2003, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by russellwarshay
Think about how much safer our streets would be if those resources were used against violent criminals? Locking such people up carries an economic benefit as well.

Amen. Or even concentrating on other drugs...

absolutuscchick · #12 12-01-2003, 01:11 AM

Obviously make it legal. I think it's ridiculous that the government tries to restrict our personal liberties to such a large extent. Honestly, if someone wants to get high, whose business is it but their own? Unless they're harming someone when they're high, I have no problem whatsoever with it. I think that the goverment spends way too much time messing with people's lives when they should be worrying about bigger problems...

CanadianTeke · #13 12-01-2003, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AGDee

2) Too difficult to measure "intoxication" if someone is driving under the influence of marijuana. There's no breathalyzer equivalent. Results of a urine test take too long to get someone off the road right away and don't prove that the person was intoxicated while driving since it stays in your system for 30 days (longer if you're overweight since it's stored in fat cells).

Up here they do what are known as R.I.D.E. (Reduce Impared Driving Everywhere) checks, basically just spot checks for drunk drivers. This year the Ontario Provincial POlice who perform the majority of RIDE checks have a new system to check for people who are driving stoned, and then eqivicate it to the Blood Alcohol Content scale. I am not sure exactly how it works, but i have seen some press coverage of it lately. Pot smoking is a relativly legal thing here (for a while during the summer it actually was legal), it is in the process of being "decriminalized" and eventually will result in getting a ticket as opposed to jail time etc. I support the legalization, i really don't think a kid wo is 17 and smokes dope should have a record for the rest of his life.

RACooper · #14 12-01-2003, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CanadianTeke

Up here they do what are known as R.I.D.E. (Reduce Impared Driving Everywhere) checks, basically just spot checks for drunk drivers. This year the Ontario Provincial POlice who perform the majority of RIDE checks have a new system to check for people who are driving stoned, and then eqivicate it to the Blood Alcohol Content scale. I am not sure exactly how it works, but i have seen some press coverage of it lately. Pot smoking is a relativly legal thing here (for a while during the summer it actually was legal), it is in the process of being "decriminalized" and eventually will result in getting a ticket as opposed to jail time etc. I support the legalization, i really don't think a kid wo is 17 and smokes dope should have a record for the rest of his life. [/B]

Ah... you've hit on a problem though. As far as I know roadside spot checks are not legal in the USA, so enforcement is a little more difficult and complecated.

On a side note Montreal's first Pot Cafe opened yesterday.... with two arrests for possession. Basically the Cafe didn't sell it, but it supported the smoking by people who borught their own (and as long as it is under 30g it's falls into a legal grey area).

AGDee · #15 12-01-2003, 07:42 AM

I live near Detroit, about 2 miles from Lake Erie and they've been doing spot checks for illegal immigrants being smuggled in from Canada near a couple marinas. I was stopped like 3 times when they first started but they may have abandoned the program because I haven't been stopped in several months now. They were doing that under the Patriot Act.

Occasionally you hear about a drunk driving road block, but they are rare and usually meet a lot of protest. (They have lowered the blood alcohol that marks "intoxication" in Michigan too).

Someone brought up a point about a 17 year old caught with marijuana not having a record.. I'd bet that the "smoking marijuana age" would be the same as the drinking age.

Dee