Legalize it!

[Schneed10]

The whole reason people grow weed in their closet, garage, or living room is because it's effing illegal and they can't grow it on a farm or in their back yard. If it becomes legal, it will be readily available just like tobacco. You won't have to put in the effort to grow it, so most wouldn't. Some still will, for fun, but they won't even be a drop in the supply bucket.

[djnemo65]

I have snorted ketamine off of bathroom floors before. I also graduated first in my class in college. This is proof that drugs are not harmful. OWNED!

[GhettoDogAllStars]

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.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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.

Couldn't the government theoretically raise the import taxes for marijuana so high that it would make it nearly impossible for other companies to import it?

This would require a domestic market and infrastructure to grow substantially and thus solve any global trade problems. This would pour money into the government, and help boost the overall economy. Farmers would be making money, increasing the demand for farming equipment, farming supplies, and a whole sort of things.

It would totally benefit the economy, help free up resources for law enforcement, unclog the courts, etc.

One problem could be what to do with the convicted criminals in jail right now on marijuana charges. Once pot becomes legal, what happens to people convicted on multiple charges, with some of them being marijuana charges.

---------------

On an interesting side note, a good friend of mine recently interviewed a former DEA agent for a report for one of his classes. Apparently a lot of the agents don't even worry about marijuana, and assume it will be legal once the general population finds it acceptable. There also ARE marijuana testing equipment readily available should any legislation be passed. Every thing is in place, just the general public is what holds it back.

Thought that was interesting.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

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

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

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.

[hesscl34]

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.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

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

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.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

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.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

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.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

I just realized, if TB MOD IV finds out we've all been talking about illegal drugs all day we're all gonna get banned for a year!!!
I think it's time I cut out of this conversation!

[Hog1]

Like Matty is saying to legalize (all natural) them all. I don't know if he is serious about that or not, but I cannot agree.
There are many people in the world who don't need the level of freedom to choose yes or no on illegal, potentially deadly, and certainly addictive drug use.
To do so make us Amsterdam. We don't want that.
While some may view it as Government invasion where it does not belong, it's not that simple. There are certainly many health risks associated with drug use, and it's frequently attendant addiction. For those of you preparing to scream "ALCOHOL". Yes, it shares many of the same qualities and problems. It's these same arguements and health risks paid for by the public sector that have shut down a substancial portion of the tobacco industry.
Gotta' say no.
I don't believe that sends the correct message to society in general, and I don't believe that would be a positive move.
You.............slaves to the leaf will have to continue to operate in the soft underbelly of society

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Like Matty is saying to legalize (all natural) them all. I don't know if he is serious about that or not, but I cannot agree.
There are many people in the world who don't need the level of freedom to choose yes or no on illegal, potentially deadly, and certainly addictive drug use.
To do so make us Amsterdam. We don't want that.
While some may view it as Government invasion where it does not belong, it's not that simple. There are certainly many health risks associated with drug use, and it's frequently attendant addiction. For those of you preparing to scream "ALCOHOL". Yes, it shares many of the same qualities and problems. It's these same arguements and health risks paid for by the public sector that have shut down a substancial portion of the tobacco industry.
Gotta' say no.
I don't believe that sends the correct message to society in general, and I don't believe that would be a positive move.
You.............slaves to the leaf will have to continue to operate in the soft underbelly of society

I think the question is: Does the government have the right to protect you from yourself?

I say no.