Legalize it!

I don't agree that domestic businesses would not be able to compete in a global pot market.

The first reason is import taxes. Surely the government would tax imported pot, just as they do other imported goods. This would raise the cost of imported pot, thereby giving the domestic businesses a small advantage over them.

Secondly, if a domestic business could lower costs by growing outside of the US, then they would (just like auto manufacturers). I don't think it would take very long for Phillip Morris to buy up the South American growers, along with their equipment, work force, and land.

I don't agree that domestic businesses would not be able to compete in a global pot market.

The first reason is import taxes. Surely the government would tax imported pot, just as they do other imported goods. This would raise the cost of imported pot, thereby giving the domestic businesses a small advantage over them.

Secondly, if a domestic business could lower costs by growing outside of the US, then they would (just like auto manufacturers). I don't think it would take very long for Phillip Morris to buy up the South American growers, along with their equipment, work force, and land.

I think your second point is pretty good and very likely.

Okay, I gotcha. My whole contention is ensuring that the roads do not get any more dangerous than they already are. It's a safety concern I have for family. I, as an individual, am not all that particularly worried about anything happening. I've always had a "devil may care" attitude. But now that I'm married and with a 20 month old I always look for any potentially dangerous situations. I can't control the actions of a drunk driver nor a person who is high (or tired or drugged out). I can try to help pass legislature that puts into effect a screening process that law enforcement can use to help keep those irresponsible f*ckups off the street.

We're not going to be able to control every possible reason why a person is impaired but we can take preventative actions to reduce the potential for an even greater number of traffic accidents.I understand what you're saying about highway safety and I do agree 100% that people should not be driving while high; I just don't think that's a reason it should remain illegal.
That being said, even if it were legalized (or decriminalized, which is far more likely) drivers should be held accountable for DWH just like drivers are held accountable for DUI/DWI's.

I love how this discussion has turned into a debate about the tax and general economic considerations of a legalized, domestic pot market.

You think you are going to be this cool parent, laughing and drinking with your kids... until you actually HAVE them. Then all of the sudden you want to protect them and give them the best in life.

I love how this discussion has turned into a debate about the tax and general economic considerations of a legalized, domestic pot market.I think that's because there's really no reason that it should be illegal. All the arguments against it are pretty easy to shoot down since alcohol and tobacco are legal.

I think that's because there's really no reason that it should be illegal. All the arguments against it are pretty easy to shoot down since alcohol and tobacco are legal.

Easy for one side, I guess. Since carrying a concealed firearm is legal then I guess it should be legal to carry a concealed grenade? Just because alcohol and tobacco are legal doesn't mean it's right to make other drugs legal regardless if they're any more or less potent. That sounds like some sort of whiney kid's argument: "Well my friend Bobby gets to stay up late, why can't I?" I say count your blessings that alcohol and tobacco are legal.

It's about perspective, because I find it laughable to say that guns are to grenades what alcohol is to pot (that would not pass for a good SAT analogy).

Plus, once again, look at the original reasons that pot was made illegal in this country and tell me that crap still holds water.

Legal issues of cannabis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_of_cannabis)

The name marijuana (Mexican Spanish marihuana, mariguana) is associated almost exclusively with the plant's psychoactive use. The term is now well known in English largely due to the efforts of American drug prohibitionists during the 1920s and 1930s, which deliberately used a Mexican name for cannabis in order to turn the populace against the idea that it should be legal, playing upon attitudes towards race. (See 1937 Marihuana Tax Act). Those who demonized the drug by calling it marihuana omitted the fact that the "deadly marihuana" was identical to cannabis indica, which had at the time a reputation for pharmaceutical safety.[73]

Although cannabis has been used for its psychoactive effects since ancient times, it first became well known in the United States during the jazz music scene of the late 1920s and 1930s. Louis Armstrong became a prominent and life-long devotee. It was popular in the blues scene as well, and eventually became a prominent part of 1960s counterculture.

*I know Wikipedia can be biased too, but this is very similar to the information I found when doing research for my college thesis.

And BTW, I don't smoke weed anymore (I did up until about 4 years ago, in college) but I do think it should be decriminalized.

It's about perspective, because I find it laughable to say that guns are to grenades what alcohol is to pot (that would not pass for a good SAT analogy).

The analogy is fairly passable, both are devices used to inflict casualties on a small group of people. A handgun is more effective at killing people than a grenade is. Alcohol and weed are substances that people use to make them feel better or cope with things they themselves are unable to handle on their own. The fact is the government has determined that it would not be conducive to general populace's health to legalize every possible means of harming other individuals.

The analogy is fairly passable, both are devices used to inflict casualties on a small group of people. A handgun is more effective at killing people than a grenade is. Alcohol and weed are substances that people use to make them feel better or cope with things they themselves are unable to handle on their own. The fact is the government has determined that it would not be conducive to general populace's health to legalize every possible means of harming other individuals.
I understand that, I just thought you were saying that weed is that much more detrimental than alcohol; as in, a grenade causes that much more damage than a handgun.
Personally I think it's more like the law allowing you to carry bowie knife in a sheath on your hip but not a switch blade in your pocket.