I'd be more than happy to pay sales tax for legalized marijuana.

Paying a tax on something like that is not right unless you are buying a brand name manufactured product, justified in a recycle or carbon tax for production en mass..etc , we should be able to grow it ourselves without any taxes what so ever.

I think it's fair to tax weed or plants you buy from a business. I also think that the lure of sales-tax money might help politicians get over their fear of publicly dealing with this taboo subject, especially in a recession.

It wouldn't make much sense to tax those who grown their own.

I hope for a day that I can Legally grow, But I must say it'd be nice to be able to walk to the corner store to pick some up as well - Wouldn't even mind paying a tax on it.

It's unanimous!

"When you prohibit something, it doesn't mean it's going away; it means it's going to be run by criminals."

>> ^NetRunner:

"When you prohibit something, it doesn't mean it's going away; it means it's going to be run by criminals."

>> ^NetRunner:

"When you prohibit something, it doesn't mean it's going away; it means it's going to be run by criminals."

More people might smoke weed if it's legalized. Is that so terrible?

Maybe it'll keep them off cigarettes and alcohol.

I've never tried marijuana. Or smoked or chewed tobacco. I do partake in some alcohol consumption from time to time.

The thing that I've noticed from the perspective of someone who doesn't really know firsthand is that it very rarely seems like one is presented with even-handed information or opinions about marijuana.

On one side, you've got the "High Times" types saying that pot is a magical happy plant that can cure disease, mildly but pleasurably intoxicate without negative side effects, and make the entire world frolic together in a wonderland of peace and love. On the other side, you've got the "DEA" types that seem to suggest that anyone that ever gets so much as a whiff of marijuana will become hopelessly addicted, doomed to a fate of escalating to stronger drugs, running from the police, funding terrorists, and eventually ending up dead in a gutter after an overdose / drug deal gone south / resisting arrest.

However, its seems that recently there has been a trend to more moderate assessment, as presented here by both Paul and Ventura. Maybe it has always been there, and I just wasn't hearing it before. However, as a non-user I've been swayed to the belief that if the government wishes to extend the "war on drugs" with particular focus on marijuana, they really need to present a fresh case for it to the citizens of the USA. One that doesn't entirely spout the heavy-handed approach of the past.

MilkmanDan, it's good to hear a sensible opinion from someone who doesn't have a personal stake in the issue.

I'm a non-smoker too. And I'm for legalization. It seems marijuana is an inextensible part of our society. And I believe it can be enjoyed responsibly; without suffering permanent harm. Plus it really does seem to be a good treatment for certain conditions. Better to have it in the open and regulated than stuck forever in a massive black market institution.

But the hardcore supporters do get on my nerves sometimes. They have a tendency to go overboard, and in doing so damage their credibility. For example, when they claim that that smoking doesn't impair your driving. That, in a sense it improves your driving, because the slowed reaction time gives you more time to consider things.

If we prohibit so people don't have to make the choice, then we should prohibit high fructose corn syrup too, so people don't choose to eat some much sugar and get so fat.

We don't prohibit alcohol, because some people might become alcoholics or have some personality flaw that makes them drink beer every day, why should it be that way with weed?
>> ^NetRunner:

"When you prohibit something, it doesn't mean it's going away; it means it's going to be run by criminals."

I knew I should have put a disclaimer on my comment saying "That said, I do support legalization of marijuana."

My real point is this: making a behavior illegal reduces the incidence of it. If it didn't, we wouldn't bother having law enforcement at all.

@LordOderus, I was taught the same thing about prohibition. I never really questioned it because I definitely think prohibition was stupid, but honestly just flipping through the evidence in the link you provided, all they really showed is that criminally-supplied alcohol was more likely to get you hospitalized and/or arrested. I dunno if that was just because people were cutting corners to make as much as they can and producing unsafe liquor, or if it was because people tended to binge drink when they did get access to alcohol, or both, but I don't think that means the overall consumption of alcohol actually went up. It just showed that the negative effects that derive from people drinking alcohol got more acute (which is perfectly good grounds for repealing prohibition, IMO).

It also shows how hard it is to ban something that's essentially universally considered socially acceptable.

@dannym3141, I agree with you. Those are the reasons why I favor legalization of marijuana. I still say banning it reduces usage, I just don't think we should care about reducing marijuana usage.

@gwiz665, funny you should bring up banning high fructose corn syrup, fat and sugar. I'm strongly in favor of taxing those things, and using the proceeds to partially fund a national health care system, but I'd obviously oppose banning them. Granted, we could probably entirely eliminate the use of high fructose corn syrup in food by reforming our farm subsidies (preferrably by mostly eliminating them), something I'd also like to see happen.

Now, I'm gonna play devil's advocate.

I'm totally for controlling (i.e. make them by prescription only) drugs which are highly physically addictive, and drugs that can be immediately life-threatening.

For example, I don't think I'd ever support legalizing heroin or crack.

I might be amenable to banning cigarettes too, though I think the way it's being squeezed in the US is probably the only way to really cut down on smoking -- keep jacking up the tax on it, and essentially ban smoking in all public areas that aren't bars, and run media campaigns to try to stigmatize smoking.

>> ^entr0py:
But the hardcore supporters do get on my nerves sometimes. They have a tendency to go overboard, and in doing so damage their credibility. For example, when they claim that that smoking doesn't impair your driving. That, in a sense it improves your driving, because the slowed reaction time gives you more time to consider things.


I guess I'm a hardcore supporter.

I'm for laws that curb driving while high, and as a non-smoker I understand your skepticism, but....

If you've ever watched a circle of college kids playing hacky-sac, upon close observation you'll notice that the best players are usually baked at the time.

Weed doesn't impair the reflexes like booze does.

And another thing, when you're high, you're just not in that great of a rush to get from point A to point B. You get into the music, and you laugh at the way the melody kind of accentuates the trip, and then you notice a pretty sunset, or some kids playing with their pretty mothers in a park...and the very last thing in the world that you want to do is to ruin that experience by running over a squirrel, or a dog, or a kid, or by smashing into somebody else's car.

I started smoking weed when I was 15. I don't think, like some hardcore supporters do, that it's a magical drug that will lead us all to nirvana.

That being said, the hypocrisy on the part of the government disgusts me. In France, they've banned msg. Pot is also illegal in France, but at least they are being consistent. It's funny because just last night I went out for some mcd's. I haven't eaten any mcdonald's in a few months. I swear people... Ok I was a little hungry but still... I couldn't describe to you how bad I was fiending for that McChicken. I felt it in me, if someone would've come by and tried to take it away I would've FUCKED them up.

I've never felt that with weed. I might go a few weeks without smoking and then really want to smoke because having gone a few weeks without, I'll get a nice buzz. I might think as I'm about to light up, "Damn this is going to be sweet, and then smoke and be like MmMmm." But not like my desperation for that McChicken last night. And I've smoked way more joints in my life then eaten McChicken's.

Here's a nice article on msg: http://www.rense.com/general52/msg.htm

So why's it like this? Well, I think it's religions fault probably. Religious people don't do "drugs". But they got no beef(pun not intended) with a McWrap.

Furthermore, in regards to driving stoned. I drive stoned. When I first starting driving I said to myself I'll never drive stoned. But after a couple times of doing it anyways, I got comfortable with it and I'm telling you I can drive just as well if not better(due to feeling relaxed and not in a rush) as sober.

I can't drink and drive tho. I would not drive drunk and I fucking can't stand driving even tipsy. I've driven tipsy before it's not fun. I don't feel comfortable doing it. I'm likely to not feel my speed unless I'm scared and staring at the speedometer. It's hard to describe how I feel driving tipsy. I just feel handicapped vs the other people on the road. Also, I live in Quebec and people drive aggressively here.

Anyways smoking weed might mildly impair your reflexes, but it doesn't affect your motor skills. So if a retard runs out into the middle of the street, you might not react in time. But you won't jump the sidewalk and kill an older lady going out for a power walk.

Also, alcohol makes me a little aggressive. Not enough to go out looking for a fight, but enough to hope someone else does.

Weed makes me completely docile.

Also, it hasn't been a gateway drug for me. Shrooms is the only other drug I've ever done.

Wasted Potential:
A good image showing the wasted potential of marijuana.

As far as driving, the problem areas with being high are heavy traffic and busy intersections... anything that requires accurate tracking of multiple objects.

Unfortunately, these are also the situations involving the greatest danger to others.

>> ^rougy:
If you've ever watched a circle of college kids playing hacky-sac, upon close observation you'll notice that the best players are usually baked at the time.
Weed doesn't impair the reflexes like booze does.

@NetRunner: First of all, I'm not sure it's clear that prohibiting something reduces its occurrence. Yes, there is increased risk on the consumption side, but there is also increased reward on the supply side. For instance, the increased profitability of selling a drug encourages those with little to lose to encourage others (particularly the youth) to become customers. The reason we have laws is not simply to discourage behavior, but also to punish behavior. I don't think, for instance, the only reason murder is so rare is its prohibition. When someone considers murder legal consequences are often low on their list of concerns. It's the social and psychological consequences that really weigh. The legal consequences exist more to service justice than for any preventative benefit.

My opinion is that the government's job is to internalize externalities. With marijuana specifically, it isn't at all clear what externalities would exist if it were outright legal. The only remotely reasonable argument I've heard is that decreased productivity impacts, for instance, employers. Well, the appropriate way for the perpetrator to bear that cost is a pink-slip, not a prison cell.

@bmacs27, I take it that you aren't proposing that making murder legal would reduce the number of murders, are you?

Let's take one step back. Let's say 1st degree murder stays like it is, but we legalize 2nd degree murder (i.e. paid assassins and hit men). Now we've brought the existing assassins into the light of day, and we can regulate and tax them -- make them take training classes, and give them literal licenses to kill. Maybe set up some rules about contracts (e.g. any assassin must honor their original contract, none of this "I'll pay you double what he's paying you" shit, or you lose your license), put together a regulatory enforcement agency, maybe a little interdisciplinary agreements between local law enforcement so hits can be done without harming innocent bystanders, let the CIA privatize some of their wetwork, etc. Oh, and we'll need to set up some laws that give hitmen contractor-assassin privilege so they can't be compelled to rat out their clients, otherwise they won't have a sustainable business model.

Now, if we did all that, would the total number of murders go down, because we legalized a type of murder, or would it go up because we massively increased the ease with which murder can be supplied?

Same with banning drugs. If you force providers to live outside the law, supply will shrink, even if demand stays the same. The shift in the supply curve means the price increases (especially if demand doesn't reduce!), and that means fewer people will actually make a purchase, and you end up with less drugs in the hands of people, and less drugs being used.

You still get all the other negative effects, such as lost tax revenue, no government regulatory oversight, a new contraband market for criminals to make a profit on (which leads to more people being drawn into the enterprise), and the secondary effect of more violent crime related to the production, transportation and sale of drugs.

Reducing the incidence of people smoking marijuana isn't even close to being worth all that. Reducing the incidence of murder is.

>> ^Psychologic:
As far as driving, the problem areas with being high are heavy traffic and busy intersections... anything that requires accurate tracking of multiple objects.
Unfortunately, these are also the situations involving the greatest danger to others.
>> ^rougy:
If you've ever watched a circle of college kids playing hacky-sac, upon close observation you'll notice that the best players are usually baked at the time.
Weed doesn't impair the reflexes like booze does.


Tell me about it.

Next time you drive a limo through Boston during morning rush-hour traffic, give me a call.

We'll compare notes.

^NetRunner:
Now, if we did all that, would the total number of murders go down, because we legalized a type of murder, or would it go up because we massively increased the ease with which murder can be supplied?
Same with banning drugs. If you force providers to live outside the law, supply will shrink, even if demand stays the same.


Seriously? Murder? The two are not nearly similar enough to extrapolate trends. Plus, you're comparing a product to a service. =P

We can debate the numerous factors involved in the supply/demand cycle of marijuana, but to get a better understanding of usage trends you really have to look at places that have tried legalization, or at least something similar.

A good place to start is Portugal.

>> ^Psychologic:
We can debate the numerous factors involved in the supply/demand cycle of marijuana, but to get a better understanding of usage trends you really have to look at places that have tried legalization, or at least something similar.
A good place to start is Portugal.


Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. We don't really need to speculate about usage after legalization...there are a number of places that have tried it. From what I remember, none of them saw significant increases in usage. I see no reason to think Americans would behave differently, although I'm sure most Republicans would claim so (given that they seem to think Europe is populated primarily by socialist demons, not people).

@Psychologic, seriously, you link me an article about a study done by Cato?

Try a non-partisan study, please!

As for my murder legalization example, I don't think it's hard to see that there would be more murders.

Let's try some other silly hypothetical. Let's say that during the halcyon days of the Bush administration they placed an embargo on all French cheeses, just because they wanted to stick it to the French for not going along with the whole invade Iraq thing.

Would that immediately increase the amount of French cheese into the United States, and ultimately make those snooty Saddam-loving French get even higher export revenue from the US because of the embargo?

Wouldn't it stand to reason that if the world really worked that way, that much of foreign trade policy would center around trying to provoke other nations into placing an embargo on US goods?

^NetRunner:
Try a non-partisan study, please!

Perhaps you can find some studies indicating that drug use has increased significantly in Portugal since decriminalization. I'm having a difficult time with that, from any source (though I haven't tried Limbaugh yet).


As for my murder legalization example, I don't think it's hard to see that there would be more murders.

I didn't say there wouldn't be more murders, I said (or rather implied) that the comparison was absurd. You're also looking at prohibition in a vacuum, as if it is the only factor limiting use.

First a determination has to be made as to whether marijuana use needs to be reduced. If not, and prohibition is lifted with no other changes, then use will probably increase. In this case, increased use is not undesirable.

The other possibility is that it is determined that marijuana use does need to be reduced. In that case we want the most effective and least costly method. One option is prohibition, but there are others, such as in Portugal's case.

Just because an attempted solution includes the decriminalization/legalization of any particular drug does not mean its use will increase. I know you're talking about only repealing prohibition without changing anything else, but the distinction needs to be made, especially if you're going to bring ideas like murder into the equation.

@Psychologic, I'm looking at prohibition "in a vacuum" because I want to push back on the idea that banning something has no effect or increases the amount of it that happens, regardless of any other factors.

It's the only part of the Cato study I'm thoroughly skeptical of, and I notice that in the Time article, that's what the skeptics they contacted found dubious as well.

I'm not arguing in favor of prohibition as good policy, I'm simply arguing that blunt use of laws, no matter how ill-advised, always have some level of efficacy.

I agree that criminalizing drug use isn't the right policy, but I do think if you make a concerted effort to go after dealers you can make the supply curve shift to the left, raise the price, and reduce consumption.

I'm inclined to think that we could have a legalization policy that increases drug consumption, but reduces addiction rates, health issues, and related crime, and therefore is worth supporting.

I'm not inclined to believe that there is some sort of universal truism that banning a product doesn't make a dent in the consumption of it.