Legalized Marijuana

[rvg]

RVG, you strike me as someone who has spent next to zero time in and amongst the weed-smoking sub (or not so sub) culture.

You are absolutely right. I have NEVER smoked weed. I don't even know what it looks like or smells like. I know what a hemp leaf looks like, but that's about it.

Legalizing it has only benefits, no downsides.

Not for me. I quite honestly do not need it nor want it. As for the society at large, what benefits are we talking about?

[Fisherking]

I wouldn’t bother trying to convert him.

If it proves to be a sweet tax item then state legislatures will be passing bill without having to go to the people.

What really needs done now is the re-legalization of industrial hemp. The stuff that won’t get you high. Replace wood paper with hemp paper and allow its other uses.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, I could refer to you to my 5-point list earlier in the thread, but I think I can reach you better by outlining why it would be helpful to you--a responsible, law-abiding, straight-edged conservative:

MONEY. That's why. By decriminalizing--and especially by fully legalizing and regulating--you take the single-largest step towards a balanced budget in this country that could possible be taken. Entire portions of the federal government become suddenly useless, and ripe for extinction. State and Federal criminal justice systems would be free from prosecuting the hundreds of thousands of minor drug offendors that currently clog our courts and prisons, and the federal government would lose much of its incentive to create intrusive policies (more of which have stemmed from the war on drugs than any other driving force). Jobs would be created. Millions of jobs. Businesses would be able to quickly step in and make money in a market for which there is already a great demand. The taxes--assuming it was taxed at the same rate as Alcohol--would bring in astronomical profits for state and federal coffers. Organized crime would take a massive financial death blow, lessening the burden on our criminal justice system even further. Money, money, money. That affects you, whether you care about weed or not.

LODES OF MONE

[HopAlongBunny]

It is hard to add much beyond Gelatinous Cube's excellent post

Changing terms of reference can be useful though: "rvg, why do you insist on a public subsidy to organized crime?"

[Fragony]

It is hard to add much beyond Gelatinous Cube's excellent post

Changing terms of reference can be useful though: "rvg, why do you insist on a public subsidy to organized crime?"

Because it's easier to be a hypocrite, and I would be ok with being one really. Much better than importing the amount of violence that goes on in this trade, less people will get hurt if you just accept the existance of an undercurrent in economics aka the black market. Do not mess with it.

[HopAlongBunny]

No argument really.

Legalization reduces violence, reduces the pain and "captures" lost economic activity.

[Fragony]

No argument really.

Legalization reduces violence, reduces the pain and "captures" lost economic activity.

Is a billion dollar loss per state for the cartels enough of an argument, do you really think they will let that happen when it is so much easier to terrorise? Little reality check, they outbudget you 4 to 1.

[rory_20_uk]

Is a billion dollar loss per state for the cartels enough of an argument, do you really think they will let that happen when it is so much easier to terrorise? Little reality check, they outbudget you 4 to 1.

Terrorise who exactly? Dictate the USA on which laws it enacts? Take on the most powerful armed forces on the planet? Terrorise the population to not purchase from legal channels but to purchase illegally?

If that were possible, there are many other areas where criminals would get laws to get money.

Frankly, you've been smoking some really strong stuff today.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Is a billion dollar loss per state for the cartels enough of an argument, do you really think they will let that happen when it is so much easier to terrorise? Little reality check, they outbudget you 4 to 1.

Good grief, Frags. You bring this up again and again, but there's no evidence for it at all. In Washington we already get a lot of weed from BC Canada and there's no attacks from the cartels.

There's not going to be any narco-wars or -terrorism.

Until you have solid evidence that this is actually a possibility and not just something you have a hunch is going to happen, would you consider not using this as a reason to oppose legalized pot?

Not for me. I quite honestly do not need it nor want it. As for the society at large, what benefits are we talking about?

People should have the freedom to smoke pot. A freer society is a better society.

Also, the end of the drug war that was put millions of people in jail, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, militarized our police, normalized no-knock raids on people for having/selling a plant (and we thought the secret police of totalitarian states actually knocking on doors at night was bad), led to tens of thousands of people being killed by violence in Central and South America.

You need to look at the broader view rather than just 'people can smoke pot now'.

I do not believe drugs to be a positive influence on our society.

I do not like this position, because I believe it stems from an authoritarian mindset; the idea that anyone has a right to prohibit (consider the full meaning of that word) anything they believe to be a negative influence on society at large.

But you and other authoritarians should not have the power to decide how others should best spend their lives (excepting the prevention of violence and fraud, etc.). IT is a fundamental right of people to direct their own lives, and live them their own way, even if that displeases others because they are not living up to what is imagined to be best for society.

CR

[HopAlongBunny]

Is a billion dollar loss per state for the cartels enough of an argument, do you really think they will let that happen when it is so much easier to terrorise? Little reality check, they outbudget you 4 to 1.

Violence in the context of American (Canadian, EU) legalization is unlikely. Like any good business, investment in political influence is much safer-corruption is the much bigger concern. It too, is purely hypothetical.

I thought and realized corruption in unnecessary as well. Most Western systems are sufficiently porous that simple funding of the "right" causes can keep reform bogged down for decades.

[Greyblades]

There is very little violence in the weed business, especially in the west where most of it comes from peaceful local distributors. It is still organized crime, to be sure, but we're not talking Al Capone here.

Aren't the fellows supplying weed and other narcotics from south of the border fighting a civil war in Mexico? They seem pretty violent.

[Fragony]

I'd love to be wrong and probably are, but I think a third way is better, the Dutch way. Keep it illegal but just don't enforce the law with small quantities. Everybody happy, no harm done.

[Tuuvi]

Is a billion dollar loss per state for the cartels enough of an argument, do you really think they will let that happen when it is so much easier to terrorise? Little reality check, they outbudget you 4 to 1.

The cartels can get away with what they do in Mexico because they pay off the police or they're in the police themselves, so nobody can really stop them. Here in the US our government institutions are a lot stronger; the cartels do operate here but they could never carry out the kind of violence they do in Mexico without serious consequences.

[Fragony]

The cartels can get away with what they do in Mexico because they pay off the police or they're in the police themselves, so nobody can really stop them. Here in the US our government institutions are a lot stronger; the cartels do operate here but they could never carry out the kind of violence they do in Mexico without serious consequences.

Difference is that Mexico they are used to it, and you guys aren't. A few horrific incidents might be enough to completely destroy what you are trying here. I might be wrong but imho you should always take babysteps if you want something to work in the long term. Give it 20 years or so, in the meantime just don't harass people who like a smoke, just turn a blind eye.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh for **** sake, Frags. Still more of this argument from you and yet not the tiniest bit of evidence to support it.

It's been 40 years since the beginning of the war on drugs, and decades more since marijuana was made illegal.

Keeping it illegal is stupid, for the reasons I've outlined above. Not going after small amounts of possession is basically what we do now, and it's wrong on principle and practically.

CR

[Fragony]

Oh for **** sake, Frags. Still more of this argument from you and yet not the tiniest bit of evidence to support it.

It's been 40 years since the beginning of the war on drugs, and decades more since marijuana was made illegal.

Keeping it illegal is stupid, for the reasons I've outlined above. Not going after small amounts of possession is basically what we do now, and it's wrong on principle and practically.

CR

I am not making any claims I am just worried. You say it's wrong on principle but is the government supposed to be your mother who tells you what is right and wrong? It is not a matter of principle for me at all. Between right and wrong there is this thing called pragmatic. If you slowly build it down and give everyone some time to recover it will probably work much better. Nothing wrong with the idea itself but why a hammer if you have a scalpel.

[Fragony]

No. The Cartel won in Mexico because the government was already corrupt. It could never happen here unless over a period of years and great weakening in our institutions.

I find it a bit funny how you supporters seem to want recognision from your government and insist on it being legal, why not settle for it being available without getting prosecuted. All the violence will remain for Mexico's government to deal with and the user in America can just smoke his joint without worries. All weed production is in the hands of organised crime in the Netherlands and nobody notices it, it's blissfully invisable. It's a perfect quid pro quo-situation as long as you don't get all too principal about hearing from the government what you can and can't do. Why even risk doing more harm than good? It's stupid and unnecesary.

[Fragony]

Taxes. You can't tax an illegitimate business.

We don't tax it over here, we just turn a blind eye because it is convenient. People shouldn't think in rules so much if I am not mistaken an officer still has to wear a sword in court. They also don't do that anymore.

[Fragony]

Right. That's my point. Taxes are the biggest reason to legalize it completely.

Taxes that are wasted on an inneficient governemt while you could just let the money get spend in the actual economy?

[Idaho]

The status quo in the Netherlands is a bodge. Decriminalisation is a bodge. Just sort it out properly. To defend the current policy in the Netherlands is daft.

Either sh*t or get off the pot.

[Fragony]

The status quo in the Netherlands is a bodge. Decriminalisation is a bodge. Just sort it out properly. To defend the current policy in the Netherlands is daft.

Either sh*t or get off the pot.

It just works, don't see what's so daft about it unless it's just a matter of principle, although it was taken a turn to the worse with a plan only a politician could come up with, to have yourself registered if you want to buy in coffeeshops. People are not going to do that and in the south where it was implemented first the damage has been done, dealers everywhere.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Okay, now let's throw a wrench in the question: What if the Netherlands had a budget crisis, crippling debt, and a legislature that was utterly incapable of making spending cuts or creating revenue gains through traditional avenues? Would not then total legalization, regulation, and taxation of an enourmously profitable industry that already exists be a pretty simple and logical thing to do?

And perhaps more importantly, what about the consumers? Do you not believe in consumer protection? The Black Market doesn't do Q&A. You can't sue your dealer for false advertisement. What about the real entrepreneurs, who could be creating real jobs and real businesses revolving around the industry? They can't compete with the black market. Regulation breeds quality, and quality breeds good products. The reason Pacific Northwest weed is so good is because it is grown locally, usually by very small enterprises, and sold locally by people who have reputations to protect--not with violence, but with good product. But that is an anomoly, and normally such quality only comes from regulation. Mexico is proof of that, insofar as allowing the business to go totally unregulated leads to the very opposite of what you want.

Your posts have been featuring more bold words, sounds like you need to relax and smoke up buddy. Want to drive up to Washington with me?

[Fragony]

Okay, now let's throw a wrench in the question: What if the Netherlands had a budget crisis, crippling debt, and a legislature that was utterly incapable of making spending cuts or creating revenue gains through traditional avenues? Would not then total legalization, regulation, and taxation of an enourmously profitable industry that already exists be a pretty simple and logical thing to do?

And perhaps more importantly, what about the consumers? Do you not believe in consumer protection? The Black Market doesn't do Q&A. You can't sue your dealer for false advertisement. What about the real entrepreneurs, who could be creating real jobs and real businesses revolving around the industry? They can't compete with the black market. Regulation breeds quality, and quality breeds good products. The reason Pacific Northwest weed is so good is because it is grown locally, usually by very small enterprises, and sold locally by people who have reputations to protect--not with violence, but with good product. But that is an anomoly, and normally such quality only comes from regulation. Mexico is proof of that, insofar as allowing the business to go totally unregulated leads to the very opposite of what you want.

All makes sense but it just works for us

[Fragony]

I'm a big believer in emphasis.



I'm sure it does. I'm just trying to explain to you why it is such a big deal here, for Americans, to have it legalized.

Back at ya, if you just discriminalise it without taxing it the money flows directly back in the economy and the government will still get revenues from consumer purchases, without having to set up an expensive government-institution tasked with regulating it. Win-win situation.

[Fragony]

Obviously not. That kind of extreme trickle-down theory has never been successful in practice. Millions of Americans smoke weed. That money goes to people selling the weed, whether it be organized crime like the cartel (in which case it never goes back into the economy in a meaningful way) or it goes to the local grower (who will put most of it back into his growing operation). What spare money the 'owners' of the business have for personal use is going to be spent quietly, under the table, in ways that don't attract undue attention--and also in ways that probably won't get taxed.

Still probably worth the lack of trouble, no government hunting it down will save you a lot of money, and no government regulating will save you money. And the end-user can just enjoy his joint without getting mauled by the system, same for small local growers who don't have to worry about unwanted attention. Growing it in big quantities is asking for trouble and who likes trouble

[Fragony]

Wrong again, grasshopper. Because the entire business is illegal, prices are high. This is always true in black markets, because prohibition creates risk, and risk has to be mitigated by raising prices. In places where small quantities are decriminalized (most of the west coast) even small growers still have to worry about government crackdown.

So make sure they don't they have to worry about crackdowns, with my proposition they don't. As for consumers protection, provide a bad product and people go to someone else.

[Fragony]

Such a situation might be fine where you're at, but here in the US of A we have a serious want of revenue, and that requires that business be taxed. In your system, the economy does not benefit from the drug trade.

Oh it does, but indirectly. It could even work better for the US as the money is almost guarentied to be spend in the US because it's so big. Dutch businesses at the borders suffer from the taxation, goods are cheaper in Germany and Belgium, US doesn't has such a problem. Why overly complicate things?

[Idaho]

It's interesting that being a conservative is so dependent on the status quo. Your status quo is the strange halfway house of the Netherlands. For rvg it's the current situation in the us. There is a belief that we have got to the current situation through careful analysis and measured decision, when in truth we have bumbled to now through mistake, opportunity and compromise.

[Fragony]

It's interesting that being a conservative is so dependent on the status quo. Your status quo is the strange halfway house of the Netherlands. For rvg it's the current situation in the us. There is a belief that we have got to the current situation through careful analysis and measured decision, when in truth we have bumbled to now through mistake, opportunity and compromise.

Me a conservative you kidding me. Just an observation don't hurt me if I'm wrong, but legalising often appears to be more about recognistion rather than sensible policy, recognistion FROM that very status-quo.

[Idaho]

I think you are right. Legalisation is about recognition. Recognising that drug use is an inherent part of society that won't go away with moralising or legislating.