Legalizing Pot for Money?!? What Has Happened to America?!?

[Anthony W. 0]

I don't want this to get political, first off. The state of California which has been a bit irresponsible is thinking about putting a tax on pot. My question is, WHY!?! That means legalizing it in the first place... Hell, maybe it's a good thing. I'd rather see people smoking pot than drinking beer. Pot is less addictive than alcohol and studies show it has less of a negative effect on our body. I AM NOT SAYING I AGREE WITH POT. I am saying that there are two great arguments for and against it. I want your opinion. I think this is a bit stupid, but, a lot of things are these days you must admit.

[Echarlie 0]

My question would be...Why not???

It would be a great source of revenue for the state, and nobody ever died from smoking weed.

The same cannot be said of alcohol or tobacco.

[ONETINSOLDIER 2]

hi from the emerald triangle here in sunny california,where Ive had the police tell me many a time that,"We dont care about wed, we would rather see you sitting at home all stoned than out drunk driving or tweaking all night." Then they gave me my smoke back and sent me on my way. (3 times)

 

P.S. If you get the chance watch the series called , "Illegal drugs, and how they got that way." on the history channel. very informative, and some quite surprising little known facts , at least for me,

Edited February 26, 2009 by gwar

[column5 63]

[+SkippyBing 8]

I saw a program in the UK last week where they mentioned pot being sold for medical reasons in California which may be what they're talking about.

[column5 63]

I saw a program in the UK last week where they mentioned pot being sold for medical reasons in California which may be what they're talking about.

 

In Cali, having a bad day is enough medical justification to get free pot from the City of San Francisco Health Department.

[+Gunrunner 314]

I'd rather criminalize tobacco and alcohol... but as long as these two are legal and generating revenues for both the industry and governments, then why not do the same with marijuana indeed.

 

It's not nearly as addictive and dangerous as alcohol, legalizing will mean more revenues, tribunals less crowded by annoying but mostly harmless potheads, police and narcs free to deal with the more serious stuff, the part of occasional users that started because it was illegal and to stick it to the man would not have a reason to indulge PLUS it will severely undercut the profits and livelihood of certain criminal organisations and delinguant gangs (on the downside, it might push them toward more violent or dangerous activities).

 

It's also one of the oldest (with ergot) and safest psycho-active substance used by humanity and has been part of society for centuries in various forms.

In fact, in most of occidental society, the recreative and medicinal use of marijuana is a de facto more.

 

It makes sense as lons as you don't factor "moral panic".

 

I don't condone it, but wouldn't condemn it either, the usual official attitude toward marijuana is an incoherent one, more concerned with morals than public safety.

[Silverbolt 104]

as the king of riffs said some years ago....."the system has failed!!!"

[Anthony W. 0]

My major question is: Haven't we been fighting the hippies, the peace love and socialist anarchist(proper definition, not popular definition)people for the past 200 years? Pot destroys lives. So does beer. I say we put stricter limits on all of it. I don't support pot and I don't support the destruction of lives. Hell, I'm mad at myself for being addicted to this computer.

[Anthony W. 0]

If we legalize this, I pray to god we make some other substance illegal.

[+SkippyBing 8]

I tend not to go for limiting what people can do with their lives providing it doesn't adversely affect others. Otherwise you end up with the kind of nanny state we're getting in the UK where they feel it's their right to monitor every aspect of your live, tell you how much fruit and veg to eat and remove any responsibility from the individual.

I'm sure you can argue that pot smokers destroy the lives of those around them, but large numbers of people smoke pot, drink alcohol and inhale tobacco without screwing up their lives so should they be penalised to protect a minority who'd probably find another way to mess up anyway? Maybe the ones around them should step and do something? Again it comes down to taking responsibility which I thought was a bonus of living in a free democratic society?

..and if anyone tries restricting my alcohol supply they're in big trouble...

[+Gunrunner 314]

It's in human nature to be "addicted" to things, that's how we learn...

 

The trouble is addiction to psycho-active substances, but some, as all good things, are only a matter of degree and control, just like alcohol is not necessarily dangerous and doesn't necessarily destroy lives, it's the abuse that creates trouble (just like eating too much is not such a good idea... exercising too much isn't either... some drugs in the right quantity can save you, abused they can kill or get you addicted for life...)

 

Unfortunately in our societies the notions of personal responsability, self-control and mesure are becoming relics of the past...

 

Why fight a war against a "mostly harmless" product, when the war's already lost and the insistance of criminalizing it is only lining the pockets of delinquants and criminals ? It might as well help finance health, education, anti-tobacco/alcohol/marijuana campains etc...

[Caesar 305]

Not being a pot-smoker, I don't care either which way. On the one hand, legalizing it would take away that "forbidden fruit" factor and if anything, may even decrease its use. On the other hand, it is a gateway drug; I know damn well that it is and I know plenty of people who have gotten into heavier stuff who started with pot; one of which is dead from an OD, another is on medication as a result of his use but is completely clean, still others are trying to get clean but keep relapsing, some are headed for ODs and just don't care. Bit of a tricky situation.

[+Typhoid 231]

its called "bankruptcy" and is simply a means to find another revenue source.

 

as to why - that would get into the political.

[+Gunrunner 314]

The gateway drug argument is a falacious one not backed by any statistical data (at least I have yet to see an independent study with precise methodology and raw data whose conclusions actually correlates with the data), in fact, data I browsed until now tend to show the contrary...

 

However, it is true that for those seeking to escape reality through drugs, marijuana is often a first step, but the decision was already taken, it's the will to destroy yourself that pushed them to marijuana in the first place (because it's the easiest and cheapest to get, and it's the one inducing the least fear), not the other way round.

One could also make the argument that all those pot-smokers that went into heavier stuff were coffee drinker... and coffee is a psycho-active and addictive substance, you might as well blame coffee as a gateway drug then...

The gateway drug argument is indeed a cognitive bias inherited from decades of anti-drugs campaign (unfortunately, while they managed to plant this idea in the public debate, they didn't reach their goal or reducing drug consumption).

 

There has always been, and always will be people ready and willing to destroy their lives, and they'll do it with whatever they can find, no one product is to blame, it's like blaming the gun for the murder...

Edited February 25, 2009 by Gunrunner

[+malibu43 142]

In Cali, having a bad day is enough medical justification to get free pot from the City of San Francisco Health Department.

 

No, I tried. Didn't work.

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

Pot destroys lives. So does beer. I say we put stricter limits on all of it. I don't support pot and I don't support the destruction of lives.

 

Yeah, that whole 18th Amendment thing worked out pretty well, didn't it?

 

I think that the statement "pot destroys lives" is a tad bit extreme.

 

I don't like drugs, not even weed, but I would like to think police resources, tax money, and the court system should be able to focus on much more important things than some 19 y/o kid and his friends taking bong hits while playing Xbox.

 

I in no way condone drug use or want to be around anyone that uses drugs, but the entire "War on Drugs" has been a large failure as drug use and drug related violent crimes have done nothing but increase. In the current state it is nothing but a large waste of money and it is time some new strategies are employed. However, "stricter limits" will do nothing. Are you suggesting some one have the same sentence for having a dime bag of weed as someone convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping?

[Caesar 305]

Well, you've got your statistics, I've got my experiences and they seem to indicate otherwise. But I do acknowledge, yes personality does get into it quite a bit and was likely the deciding factor on some of my friends: the drug won't smoke itself, nor force anyone to smoke it just as a gun can't pull its own trigger, it does take the person.

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

If we legalize this, I pray to god we make some other substance illegal.

 

Now that just doesn't make any sense at all...

[Caesar 305]

I in no way condone drug use or want to be around anyone that uses drugs, but the entire "War on Drugs" has been a large failure as drug use and drug related violent crimes have done nothing but increase. In the current state it is nothing but a large waste of money and it is time some new strategies are employed. However, "stricter limits" will do nothing. Are you suggesting some one have the same sentence for having a dime bag of weed as someone convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping?

 

Damn good point.

[Anthony W. 0]

Ugg, I see this getting hostile... Not what I wanted... I now retract my presence from this discussion... You all can now do what you please with this.

[+Gunrunner 314]

Caesar, it's a choice between emotive and anecdotal truth (a way to tell the truth appealing to personal experience and building up a narrative) or cold and rationnalised truth (more concerned with numbers and their relationships, often offering counter-intuitive truth but no real clue on why things happen).

 

None it better than the other, they offer two different facets of truth, one on how people see and live truth, the other on what's really going on, but without clue on why... I'd rather rely on data, you'd rather on experience, fine by me, both are as good and as true as long as we know of which we speak.

[Caesar 305]

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

Ugg, I see this getting hostile... Not what I wanted... I now retract my presence from this discussion... You all can now do what you please with this.

 

There is no need for that, I wasn't trying to be hostile, there is no reason not to make your opinion heard.

[+Dave 2,322]

Its a hot issue with some. I can give a rat's ass. I wont do it myself and give a crap if someone else does. Doesn't affect me in the least bit.