View Full Version : Legalize, Realize, Taxize and Regulize the Reefer
Legalize, Realize, Taxize and Regulize the Reefer
i am only for taxation as that is the only way legalization will occur as the government can, instead of spending hundreds of millions to fight the use of....can instead recieve tax dollars. what benefit to society is it that we criminalize marijuana? marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, yet we criminalized alcohol and then made it legal. marijuana is no more a gateway drug than tylenol is a gateway drug. oh yes, tylenol "can" be a gateway drug to those suffering pain.
the tax dollars spent (imo wasted) on fighting marijuana use is staggering. we can count not only tax dollars to the DEA, FBI, etc....but to the state and federal prisons/jails housing such offenders. it should be regulated like alcohol. i don't have a problem with that kind of regulation.
i am curious as to what YOUR arguments are for - pro or con - to the legalization of marijuana. its a slow week let's have at it.
hjmick
11-25-2008, 10:08 PM
Don't fear the reefer, man.
You made my arguments for me.
Don't forget the medicinal aspects offered by cannabis. And let's not forget, up until the Depression, pot was legal in the U.S. The criminalization of marijuana afforded authorites an extra tool to rounding up migrant workers and shipping them back to Mexico (I watch the History Channel... a lot).
Personally, I think all drugs should be legalized and taxed. The government has no business telling us what we should or should not be putting in our bodies.
Don't fear the reefer, man.
You made my arguments for me.
Don't forget the medicinal aspects offered by cannabis. And let's not forget, up until the Depression, pot was legal in the U.S. The criminalization of marijuana afforded authorites an extra tool to rounding up migrant workers and shipping them back to Mexico (I watch the History Channel... a lot).
Personally, I think all drugs should be legalized and taxed. The government has no business telling us what we should or should not be putting in our bodies.
i didn't forget, i thought that if i started off with too much people would run. so i started simple.
so your point is:
medicinal properties
can you list them?
Mr. P
11-25-2008, 10:38 PM
Legalize, Realize, Taxize and Regulize the Reefer
i am only for taxation as that is the only way legalization will occur as the government can, instead of spending hundreds of millions to fight the use of....can instead recieve tax dollars. what benefit to society is it that we criminalize marijuana? marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, yet we criminalized alcohol and then made it legal. marijuana is no more a gateway drug than tylenol is a gateway drug. oh yes, tylenol "can" be a gateway drug to those suffering pain.
the tax dollars spent (imo wasted) on fighting marijuana use is staggering. we can count not only tax dollars to the DEA, FBI, etc....but to the state and federal prisons/jails housing such offenders. it should be regulated like alcohol. i don't have a problem with that kind of regulation.
i am curious as to what YOUR arguments are for - pro or con - to the legalization of marijuana. its a slow week let's have at it.
No argument here...you posted my opinion.
Mr. P
11-25-2008, 10:57 PM
Don't fear the reefer, man.
You made my arguments for me.
Don't forget the medicinal aspects offered by cannabis. And let's not forget, up until the Depression, pot was legal in the U.S. The criminalization of marijuana afforded authorites an extra tool to rounding up migrant workers and shipping them back to Mexico (I watch the History Channel... a lot).
Personally, I think all drugs should be legalized and taxed. The government has no business telling us what we should or should not be putting in our bodies.
Ok..call me a hypocrite here..I can't agree with "all"..we know some are really killers and some folks for whatever reason are going to fall victim to those..A fine line I guess..
Kid goes in the candy store...faced with every imaginable candy...who restrain him/her? Gawd this sounds so maxist...but...it is a societal survival function, no?
On the other hand...if we allow the dimwits to self eliminate...there will be less welfare and social programs supported with tax payer $$$ which SHOULD = less tax. Right?
K...I'm in...I think.:beer:
hjmick
11-25-2008, 11:00 PM
i didn't forget, i thought that if i started off with too much people would run. so i started simple.
so your point is:
medicinal properties
can you list them?
It has been shown to significantly ease the pain of rheumatoid arthritis. For cancer patients cannabis can stimulate the appetite and alleviate nausea and vomiting, which are common side effects of chemotherapy treatment. Marijuana can prevent epileptic seizures in some patients. Pot can reduce interlobular pressure, which alleviates the pain and slows, and sometimes stops, the progress of Glaucoma. For AIDS patients, it can reduce the nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite caused by the ailment itself and by various AIDS medications. For those with Multiple Sclerosis, Marijuana can limit the muscle pain and spasticity caused by the disease, as well as relieving tremor and unsteadiness of gait.
On top of all that, it can alleviate the chronic, often debilitating pain caused by many disorders and injuries.
And that's just off the top of my head.
Ok..call me a hypocrite here..I can't agree with "all"..we know some are really killers and some folks for whatever reason are going to fall victim to those..A fine line I guess..
Kid goes in the candy store...faced with every imaginable candy...who restrain him/her? Gawd this sounds so maxist...but...it is a societal survival function, no?
On the other hand...if we allow the dimwits to self eliminate...there will be less welfare and social programs supported with tax payer $$$ which SHOULD = less tax. Right?
K...I'm in...I think.:beer:
so who restrains the kid? is that your question? the parents would be my answer. if not the parents, then if the neighborhood takes an interest in the well being of the neighborhood kids, then the store owner will say:
hey, you hadda nuff candy this week already, get outta here
because the store owner is not out to make a weak buck of the kid.
in that scenario, it is because the store owner, most likely, is a law abiding citizen (born here, came here, whatever) that wants what is best for his store and that means the best for his neighborhood. i had those stores growing up in san diego (not like my dad's stores in queens as he tells me), and not one of them ever outright scolded me for my sugar treats, but the one by my home razzed me for buyying nothing but sugar candy, as he called it (i don't about you, but peanut butter cups have protein and stuff....) he asked me if i stole my mothers change....i pled the 5th....even back then :laugh2: serious, he called me a smartass...but then he continued to take my change for my candy's :coffee:
as to the dimwits.....i don't think they will ever self eliminate. especially with joe steele's health care plan.
hjmick
11-25-2008, 11:14 PM
Ok..call me a hypocrite here..I can't agree with "all"..we know some are really killers and some folks for whatever reason are going to fall victim to those..A fine line I guess..
Kid goes in the candy store...faced with every imaginable candy...who restrain him/her? Gawd this sounds so maxist...but...it is a societal survival function, no?
On the other hand...if we allow the dimwits to self eliminate...there will be less welfare and social programs supported with tax payer $$$ which SHOULD = less tax. Right?
K...I'm in...I think.:beer:
I initially felt this way, but after giving it some thought and determining that the government shouldn't meddle in what we put into our bodies, I figure in for a penny, in for a pound. At some point personal responsibility has to become a factor as well. Package and tax pot like cigarettes, keep the other crap behind the pharmacy counter, slap a 21 years of age limit on all of it, and off we go. All alcohol DUI laws apply.
It has been shown to significantly ease the pain of rheumatoid arthritis. For cancer patients cannabis can stimulate the appetite and alleviate nausea and vomiting, which are common side effects of chemotherapy treatment. Marijuana can prevent epileptic seizures in some patients. Pot can reduce interlobular pressure, which alleviates the pain and slows, and sometimes stops, the progress of Glaucoma. For AIDS patients, it can reduce the nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite caused by the ailment itself and by various AIDS medications. For those with Multiple Sclerosis, Marijuana can limit the muscle pain and spasticity caused by the disease, as well as relieving tremor and unsteadiness of gait.
On top of all that, it can alleviate the chronic, often debilitating pain caused by many disorders and injuries.
And that's just off the top of my head.
excellent, just amazing. and yet our government, obama soon to be included, is continuing the criminalization of this drug. i honestly thought that billy would make it legal or at least decriminalize it, but no. and seeing obama's recent decisions and picks, i expect no more.
maybe obama will "blow" this off
hjmick
11-25-2008, 11:19 PM
as to the dimwits.....i don't think they will ever self eliminate. especially with joe steele's health care plan.
I maintain that modern medicine and advancements in treatment have led to an increase in the number of stupid people in the world. I figure that there was a time when the crap they would do would kill them. Today, doctorssave them. I hate doctors. ;)
I maintain that modern medicine and advancements in treatment have led to an increase in the number of stupid people in the world. I figure that there was a time when the crap they would do would kill them. Today, doctorssave them. I hate doctors. ;)
don't hate doctors. that is like hating lawyers or mechanics. there are plenty of good folks out there.
"stupid" people most likely were not counted in census back then.
I disagree with the idea of legalizing everything. Personal responsibility does come into play, but you can't realistically expect a junkie or a methhead to accept personal responsibility. I think if hard drugs such as those are legalized, we'll be looking at a much more dramatic rate of incarceration than what we're seeing now. The other thing to consider, as well, is that psychedelic drugs, which are harmless for most of us, have been shown to magnify dormant or minor mental problems. I don't really like the idea of a borderline schizophrenic being able to go buy some LSD from the pharmacy. In order to regulate that sort of thing, we would have to set up an entire medical industry for recreational drugs, and I just plain can't see that happening in any capacity with our government.
Marijuana should be legal, though, no doubt about that. I do believe that it will be in the near future, though (meaning in my lifetime). At this point, I don't think anybody at the street level is really thinking that pot is going to be the downfall of society or anything. Literally everyone I know in my age bracket has at least tried it, and even here in the deep south, the worst punishment you'll get for possession is just a fine. Problem is, though, that the people who are making the laws don't see it that way.
I will say that the anti-drug commercials have gotten better lately. I'm glad they stopped with the "if you smoke pot, you'll probably fund terrorists and kill children!" line of warnings and they're going the realistic route: "if you smoke pot, you'll probably never leave the house and get fat because all you'll do is eat and watch TV." Even that isn't completely accurate, of course, but they're better than they have been in the past.
Mr. P
11-26-2008, 12:53 PM
A bit of interesting info. from the CIA..Notice no mention of pot..
These numbers prove why the "war" on drugs can never be won...IMO
Illicit drugs:
cocaine: worldwide coca leaf cultivation in 2005 amounted to 208,500 hectares; Colombia produced slightly more than two-thirds of the worldwide crop, followed by Peru and Bolivia; potential pure cocaine production rose to 900 from 645 metric tons in 2005 - partially due to improved methodologies used to calculate levels of production; Colombia conducts aggressive coca eradication campaign, but both Peruvian and Bolivian Governments are hesitant to eradicate coca in key growing areas; 551 metric tons of export-quality cocaine (85% pure) is documented to have been seized or destroyed in 2005; US consumption of export quality cocaine is estimated to have been in excess of 380 metric tons
opiates: worldwide illicit opium poppy cultivation reached 208,500 hectares in 2005; potential opium production of 4,990 metric tons was only a 9% decrease over 2004's highest total recorded since estimates began in mid-1980s; Afghanistan is world's primary opium producer, accounting for 90% of the global supply; Southeast Asia - responsible for 9% of global opium - saw marginal increases in production; Latin America produced 1% of global opium, but most was refined into heroin destined for the US market; if all potential opium was processed into pure heroin, the potential global production would be 577 metric tons of heroin in 2005
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html
Yeah, that's the thing, all these countries recognize that drugs aren't going away, so they're making their money off of it. The US is way behind a lot of the world in this regard.
Perfect example: Miami in the 80's. Miami's economy boomed in the mid-80's, the city was restored, because there was so much income being distributed into the city all thanks to cocaine. Now, on the one hand, yeah, you also had lots of murders, broken homes, etc. On the other, in the big-picture sense, there was a lot of good that came about as a result. Now, imagine if we were able to do that with the whole country, and imagine if it were built on a "drug" that doesn't make people violent or addicts, that people don't kill each other over, etc.
Even though it's geared more to the stoner crowd, I saw a documentary called Super-High Me (it's a parody of Super Size Me: a comedian lives a very healthy lifestyle for 30 days, then smokes grass constantly for 30 days and measures the results) that examined, among other things, the medical marijuana market. The proprietors of these places are making tons of money, which in turn helps their economy, even if it is on a small scale, and they're sincerely helping people (they offer many alternatives to smoking marijuana: lip balm, foods, vaporizers, etc., so it's not unhealthy even in the sense of smoking). And the owner that they were interviewing was shut down during filming because of the actions of one local sherriff who'd "had enough" or some crap like that. And that's what's going on on a national scale: the backwards, antiquated views of a few people are determining the actions for a huge number of people.
But, again, it all seems like kind of a moot point. Anybody who wants to smoke pot can, and does, usually with little interference. I guess it would be cool to be able to go to a hash bar or something, though.
I think anything socially acceptable would be the real "gateway" drug.
Absynthe (sp?) is illegal because of a book someone wrote about a young man drinking it and ruining his life.
I don't support government regulation of anything consensual adults do that doesn't harm anyone else. I am for legalization of pot, but I don't think people should be able to "smoke and drive".
hjmick
11-26-2008, 03:50 PM
Absynthe is not illegal.
Absynthe is not illegal.
It was before 2007...oops. It was illegal because the government wanted to parent the citizens, whether it's legal or not now is my mistake but doesn't negate the point. kwim?
hjmick
11-26-2008, 03:58 PM
It's legal in the U.S. today.
hjmick
11-26-2008, 04:08 PM
Oh, and it's not the same as the really good Absinthe and it still tastes like crap, even with the sugar.
I think anything socially acceptable would be the real "gateway" drug.
Absynthe (sp?) is illegal because of a book someone wrote about a young man drinking it and ruining his life.
I don't support government regulation of anything consensual adults do that doesn't harm anyone else. I am for legalization of pot, but I don't think people should be able to "smoke and drive".
i think the whole "gateway" drug thing is bullcowpie. you either are going to try something or you are not. taking a hit of skunk is not going to make you want to snort/slam coke or crack. same as taking tylenol, prescribed or not, is not going to make you want to try morphine.
drugs do not MAKE you want to do another drug, you choose that. while one may argue that drugs lower your inhibition level, thats fine, i would counter that alcohol, at least for me, is the drug that most lowers my inhibitions and i have done a wee amount of other drugs in my senior year at HS. but it was all my choice. the only drug that made me jump naked off of avila pier at 10 o'clock at night was alcohol. if i was stoned, i guarantee you i would have been smarter than that! and those damn girls hid our freakin clothes and cold water stuff is NOT a myth :laugh2:
5stringJeff
11-26-2008, 04:34 PM
The only reason MJ is a gateway drug is because dealers of hard drugs are the only ones that sell MJ. Take MJ away from drug dealers, hard drug use should go down, not up.
I totally agree with legalizaing marijuana. But, like Dan, I have reservations about legalizaing everything. From the libertarian viewpoint, the state doesn't have the right to tell you what you should or shouldn't ingest. However, libertarianism presupposes a rational mind, and drug addicts are not rational.
The only reason MJ is a gateway drug is because dealers of hard drugs are the only ones that sell MJ. Take MJ away from drug dealers, hard drug use should go down, not up.
I totally agree with legalizaing marijuana. But, like Dan, I have reservations about legalizaing everything. From the libertarian viewpoint, the state doesn't have the right to tell you what you should or shouldn't ingest. However, libertarianism presupposes a rational mind, and drug addicts are not rational.
True, but do you really think legalizing dangerous drugs is going to make more people do them?
The only reason MJ is a gateway drug is because dealers of hard drugs are the only ones that sell MJ. Take MJ away from drug dealers, hard drug use should go down, not up.
I totally agree with legalizaing marijuana. But, like Dan, I have reservations about legalizaing everything. From the libertarian viewpoint, the state doesn't have the right to tell you what you should or shouldn't ingest. However, libertarianism presupposes a rational mind, and drug addicts are not rational.
i would change the word "sell" to "push" and with that, you bring a very good point. i did a debate on this in college and i found that when holland legalized the reefer, hard drug use went down. that is because, as you say, people went to respectable places and were not pushed with sales pitches about these other drugs.
i agree with you and dan, we should not legalize everything. i think your idea of libertarianism is one i don't jump on board. if the state shouldn't tell you what to ingest, then the state has no business to presuppose a rational mind. at some point, the state/government needs to make certain decisions that will create a more perfect union with the LEAST amount of government intrusion. how can a political philosophy, that is founded on individual liberty, presuppose?
i don't about you jeff, but a quick review of history, even a cursory glance, shows that humans are not rational overall.
True, but do you really think legalizing dangerous drugs is going to make more people do them?
absolutely. crack/coke/etc....are VERY addicting. it is not so much a matter of "want", it is a matter of addiction.
absolutely. crack/coke/etc....are VERY addicting. it is not so much a matter of "want", it is a matter of addiction.
It's pretty easy to get illegal drugs. It's also easy to teach about the dangers of them. You cannot be addicted if you don't start.
It's pretty easy to get illegal drugs. It's also easy to teach about the dangers of them. You cannot be addicted if you don't start.
i am not sure your point(s)....
5stringJeff
11-26-2008, 06:08 PM
i would change the word "sell" to "push" and with that, you bring a very good point. i did a debate on this in college and i found that when holland legalized the reefer, hard drug use went down. that is because, as you say, people went to respectable places and were not pushed with sales pitches about these other drugs.
i agree with you and dan, we should not legalize everything. i think your idea of libertarianism is one i don't jump on board. if the state shouldn't tell you what to ingest, then the state has no business to presuppose a rational mind. at some point, the state/government needs to make certain decisions that will create a more perfect union with the LEAST amount of government intrusion. how can a political philosophy, that is founded on individual liberty, presuppose?
i don't about you jeff, but a quick review of history, even a cursory glance, shows that humans are not rational overall.
Humans act rationally. Groups of humans may not act rationally, but individuals act rationally, in their own self-interest. And I'm not saying that the state presupposes a rational mind; I'm saying that as a starting point for a political philosophy, libertarianism presupposes a rational mind.
Humans act rationally. Groups of humans may not act rationally, but individuals act rationally, in their own self-interest. And I'm not saying that the state presupposes a rational mind; I'm saying that as a starting point for a political philosophy, libertarianism presupposes a rational mind.
interesting....one human alone can act rational, but a group, may not. how is it that you know an individual will act rational over a group?
and if a group cannot act rational, then your idea of government cannot stand. if individuals act "only" and rationally in their self interest, then why bother with a form of government that "may" be irrational? sounds like everman/woman for themselves....
i am not sure your point(s)....
Why exactly would legalizing addictive drugs make them any more of a problem they are today?
Why exactly would legalizing addictive drugs make them any more of a problem they are today?
certain drugs are extremely addictive. iow, once sampled it becomes very hard, next to impossible, to "choose" whether you want to do that drug or not. speed, crack, coke, etc... are very addictive and very harmful. while those drugs are arguably available today, i would posit that if made legal, those drugs would ruin society. today those drugs are harder to get because they are illegal, imagine if those drugs were legal. crack, coke, speed, etc... would not just be a problem, it would be an epidemic problem.
retiredman
11-27-2008, 12:11 AM
Legalize, Realize, Taxize and Regulize the Reefer
i am only for taxation as that is the only way legalization will occur as the government can, instead of spending hundreds of millions to fight the use of....can instead recieve tax dollars. what benefit to society is it that we criminalize marijuana? marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, yet we criminalized alcohol and then made it legal. marijuana is no more a gateway drug than tylenol is a gateway drug. oh yes, tylenol "can" be a gateway drug to those suffering pain.
the tax dollars spent (imo wasted) on fighting marijuana use is staggering. we can count not only tax dollars to the DEA, FBI, etc....but to the state and federal prisons/jails housing such offenders. it should be regulated like alcohol. i don't have a problem with that kind of regulation.
i am curious as to what YOUR arguments are for - pro or con - to the legalization of marijuana. its a slow week let's have at it.
I am in 100% agreement. I see no real downside and an enormous upside.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.