quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

As for pointing out that US drug consumption funds violence in the drug trade, I think it's an irrelevant argument in a debate about the legalization of marijuana. (We're not talking about heroin, cocaine, meth, or anything else, not the whole "drug trade.")

Not true. Legalization will eliminate the violence because the black market will have been eliminated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Criminalizing pot is definitely lucrative for the incarceration business.

"Anyone who thinks that being opposed to the legalization of pot is about societal protection is either inadequately informed, naive or willfully ignorant. "

^^^^ YES. BUT -- I think it mostly boils down to parents wanting to shield their children from drugs.

----

Okay, why do you think that?

Granted, I'm in Florida, so perhaps, like Texas... many, many parents can look forward to the day when their "kids" will be doing drugs behind bars. Hard drugs.

And, again... uninformed parents are already drugging their kids. Ritalin. Vyvanse. Adderall. - the hard drugs.

Parents protecting their kids from drugs might want to look at the food industry. Antibiotics, growth hormones. Corn became downright scary! Water. Over the counter cough syrups. Bug sprays. I could go on.... but I'd get morose.

The thing is, where I live, people aren't dying of pot use. Walking across the street may be lethal. My area of Florida keeps "winning" the kill the pedestrians award, nationally.

Of course, one worry may be that when the government controls the farming of pot, it may become lethal, too.



_____________________________

Talk about loving travel!!! My BDSM journey to Switch took me to these places...
Previously known as:
sub - TwoHeartsBeatOne
Domme - Lady Q

(in reply to cloudboy)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


I just read a cost benefit analysis and the author's main point in favor of legalization was a surprising one to me (not one I was actually thinking about).

"This benefit goes way beyond the criminal justice system's costs of enforcing pot laws. It is about the ability of those 19 to 32 million users, their families, and friends to live normal lives."

From a money standpoint another author notes:

Replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcoholic beverages would produce combined savings and tax revenues of between $10 billion and $14 billion per year, finds a June 2005 report by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University.

- See more at: http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/#sthash.86cIGzEg.dpuf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

As for pointing out that US drug consumption funds violence in the drug trade, I think it's an irrelevant argument in a debate about the legalization of marijuana. (We're not talking about heroin, cocaine, meth, or anything else, not the whole "drug trade.")

Not true. Legalization will eliminate the violence because the black market will have been eliminated.

Not for those other drugs, though, unless those are legalized too. If the debate is strictly about marijuana alone, then to mention the "drug trade" as a whole makes the argument more convoluted and off-track.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Most marijuana users do not use other illicit drugs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Most marijuana users do not use other illicit drugs

and you know this how?

Because all the research is pretty murky.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage
That might change if more states follow New York's lead and charge $10 or more for a pack of smokes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


I just read a cost benefit analysis and the author's main point in favor of legalization was a surprising one to me (not one I was actually thinking about).

"This benefit goes way beyond the criminal justice system's costs of enforcing pot laws. It is about the ability of those 19 to 32 million users, their families, and friends to live normal lives."

From a money standpoint another author notes:

Replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcoholic beverages would produce combined savings and tax revenues of between $10 billion and $14 billion per year, finds a June 2005 report by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University.

- See more at: http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/#sthash.86cIGzEg.dpuf

You know.... the 9 year old report you're citing completely ignores anything other than law enforcement. Unfortunately, the idea that law enforcement would no longer be necessary to enforce the laws surrounding legalized marijuana is false. To legalize marijuana there will still be necessary to place restrictions on it's possession, use, and sales. The restrictions will most likely mirror the restrictions of existing marijuana laws as well as some facets of cigarettes and alcohol restrictions. The laws governing those restrictions will need to be administered by law enforcement and the court system.

But, it did get me thinking....

Federal legalization raises some issues. For instance, allowing people to grow pot in their basements would necessarily be prohibited because it would bypass the taxes imposed on the legal product. Why? Because it defeats the purpose of taxing a product if it is allowed to be cultivated with no tax being collected. Without a mechanism to insure the tax is collected, the entire argument for tax revenue is moot. It would be necessary to continue to fund the police to enforce the growth of untaxed marijuana.

The same is true of people dealing untaxed marijuana. There is no benefit at all in taxation if the black market is still allowed to thrive. In order for it to be eliminated, the government would have to make marijuana less expensive to buy after taxes than the black market price. It would be pointless to subsidize legal marijuana and then turn around and tax it just to get rid of the illicit trade, since there is little or no economic gain in subsidizing a product that will be taxed. Marijuana is a pretty common plant. It isn't at all difficult to cultivate. Unless it becomes cost prohibitive to grow it illegally for free, it will continue to be grown for free and enforcement will be required to justify the lost tax revenue. The only way to make something free cost prohibitive is to impose heavy fines or incarceration. So, it would be necessary to hold people who sell illegal marijuana accountable in a serious enough way to be a deterrent.

I can't help but wonder if these factors are being considered in these cost analyses, as they would undermine the entire economic argument for legalization. Since they weren't mentioned in your 2009 report which centered on the singular issue of law enforcement, I seriously doubt it.

-SD-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Most marijuana users do not use other illicit drugs

and you know this how?

Because all the research is pretty murky.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
Zonie - I'm in Florida where the state motto is "Come on vacation; leave on probation." A LOT of that is from pot arrests.

People talk about pot being a gateway drug but when they say that, they mean, a door to using stronger (illegal) drugs.
What we don't hear, but it IS being talked about, is the profit the state makes when they use those arrested for pot to turn in dealers of more illicit drugs. So, keeping it illegal is profitable.

quote:


Also, Florida has increased the "prison for profit" business. The state has pushed off the incarceration costs to private industry. The U.S. imprisons so many citizens that it changed the culture and spread disease. For instance, black women were the group with the highest number of new HIV cases, because the black men were getting sick in prison. That's from rape, but it's also the interplay of being on the "down low" while in prison and then coming out to a deeply religious community which discouraged discussion of gay sex in prison, and the attendant health risks. So, they just had sex with their wives, without using condoms.

Bear with me... I'll connect it.

Florida has a criminal justice BUSINESS which is booming. If the courts were no longer filled with pot cases, we wouldn't need so many cops, lawyers, prison guards, and all of the administrative staff. And, that also affects the Sheriff's department, who transport people. The list goes on and on... the profits are everywhere!

quote:


When you talk about a cost/benefit analysis on legalization of pot, it begins to look like a magic trick. Get the public to look - there, when the agenda is actually quite different.

quote:


Anyone who thinks that being opposed to the legalization of pot is about societal protection is either inadequately informed, naive or willfully ignorant.

I support parity of legalization of pot and alcohol and nicotine. Taxed the same. Priced the same. Accessible to adults.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

As for pointing out that US drug consumption funds violence in the drug trade, I think it's an irrelevant argument in a debate about the legalization of marijuana. (We're not talking about heroin, cocaine, meth, or anything else, not the whole "drug trade.")

Not true. Legalization will eliminate the violence because the black market will have been eliminated.

Not for those other drugs, though, unless those are legalized too. If the debate is strictly about marijuana alone, then to mention the "drug trade" as a whole makes the argument more convoluted and off-track.

It ought to be obvious, even to wilfully blind, that legalising marijuana while maintaining current prohibitions against other drugs will have the effect of severing the tenuous ties between marijuana and drugs such as heroin cocaine and ice. Currently they are all lumped together into the mess known as the 'drug trade'.

Apart from the legal sanctions against marijuana, there is nothing to connect marijuana with other illicit drugs. Most marijuana users do not use other illicit drugs, nor do they live 'criminal lifestyles' they are 'normal' citizens holding down jobs, raising families, paying off mortgages etc. These people resent being forced to deal with professional or lifestyle criminals in order to obtain a bit of grass for personal use.

Legalising marijuana will sever the ties that force these citizens to break the law. It will end the contrived connection between marijuana and other drugs forever. It cease funding criminals, gangs and the black market and instead funds spent obtaining marijuana will become taxable. It will ease the pressure on prisons and free up law enforcement resources to chase real criminals. It's such a no brainer on all levels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

As for pointing out that US drug consumption funds violence in the drug trade, I think it's an irrelevant argument in a debate about the legalization of marijuana. (We're not talking about heroin, cocaine, meth, or anything else, not the whole "drug trade.")

Not true. Legalization will eliminate the violence because the black market will have been eliminated.

Not for those other drugs, though, unless those are legalized too. If the debate is strictly about marijuana alone, then to mention the "drug trade" as a whole makes the argument more convoluted and off-track.

It ought to be obvious, even to wilfully blind, that legalising marijuana while maintaining current prohibitions against other drugs will have the effect of severing the tenuous ties between marijuana and drugs such as heroin cocaine and ice. Currently they are all lumped together into the mess known as the 'drug trade'.

Apart from the legal sanctions against marijuana, there is nothing to connect marijuana with other illicit drugs. Most marijuana users do not use other illicit drugs, nor do they live 'criminal lifestyles' they are 'normal' citizens holding down jobs, raising families, paying off mortgages etc. These people resent being forced to deal with professional or lifestyle criminals in order to obtain a bit of grass for personal use.

Legalising marijuana will sever the ties that force these citizens to break the law. It will end the contrived connection between marijuana and other drugs forever. It cease funding criminals, gangs and the black market and instead funds spent obtaining marijuana will become taxable. It will ease the pressure on prisons and free up law enforcement resources to chase real criminals. It's such a no brainer on all levels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Most marijuana users do not use other illicit drugs

and you know this how?

Because all the research is pretty murky.

Here's one source:
34.8% of Australians aged 14 years and over have used cannabis one or more times in their life
10.2% of Australians aged 14 years and over have used cannabis in the previous 12 months

1.2% of Australians aged 14 years and older have used heroin one or more times in their life
0.1% of Australians aged 14 years and older have used heroin in the previous 12 months -

http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/topics/quick-statistics#cannabis

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
Zonie - I'm in Florida where the state motto is "Come on vacation; leave on probation." A LOT of that is from pot arrests.

People talk about pot being a gateway drug but when they say that, they mean, a door to using stronger (illegal) drugs.
What we don't hear, but it IS being talked about, is the profit the state makes when they use those arrested for pot to turn in dealers of more illicit drugs. So, keeping it illegal is profitable.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Still, one might wonder why any of those who advocate continued prohibition are reluctant to see this and admit it, especially since we've already had the historical experience of Prohibition on alcohol and saw the consequences of doing that.

quote:


Also, Florida has increased the "prison for profit" business. The state has pushed off the incarceration costs to private industry. The U.S. imprisons so many citizens that it changed the culture and spread disease. For instance, black women were the group with the highest number of new HIV cases, because the black men were getting sick in prison. That's from rape, but it's also the interplay of being on the "down low" while in prison and then coming out to a deeply religious community which discouraged discussion of gay sex in prison, and the attendant health risks. So, they just had sex with their wives, without using condoms.

Bear with me... I'll connect it.

Florida has a criminal justice BUSINESS which is booming. If the courts were no longer filled with pot cases, we wouldn't need so many cops, lawyers, prison guards, and all of the administrative staff. And, that also affects the Sheriff's department, who transport people. The list goes on and on... the profits are everywhere!

There's no doubt in my mind about this, and we have similar booming businesses here in Arizona. This also ties in with border and immigration issues, since it relates to cross-border smuggling.

quote:


When you talk about a cost/benefit analysis on legalization of pot, it begins to look like a magic trick. Get the public to look - there, when the agenda is actually quite different.

I think it's also a rights issue. Does anyone do a cost/benefit analysis on Free Speech, and does it really matter? I don't think freedom requires any justification or explanation. I also believe that those who wish to restrict the freedom or rights of others are the ones who need to come with good justifications. I find it to be disingenuous that those who oppose legalization constantly demand arguments and justifications for legalization. By all rights, if this country was truly committed to rights and freedoms as so many of our citizens claim, then we really shouldn't have to have this argument at all.

quote:


Anyone who thinks that being opposed to the legalization of pot is about societal protection is either inadequately informed, naive or willfully ignorant.

I support parity of legalization of pot and alcohol and nicotine. Taxed the same. Priced the same. Accessible to adults.

I agree with both statements here. I think it also demonstrates hypocrisy to argue that "marijuana is bad for you, so therefore it must be illegal" while concurrently ignoring so many other legal substances which are just as bad or worse than marijuana. Arguing with the anti-legalization crowd is like entering some kind of Orwellian alternate reality where the laws of physics and logic are perceived differently. It's like standing in the room with a naked Emperor and someone trying to convince me that he's actually wearing clothes. It's absurd.