Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 7/31/2014 1:10:40 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: SadistDave

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.


Just like we so for tomatoes and lettuceYou really are a phoquing moron trying to create problems where none exist.



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.

Only if you make it that way. How bout it is legal and that is it. I know it is too easy for punks to understand. Punks always want to make a buck on someone elses fun. There is no need to tax it. There is no need to limit it's use.



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.

This would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion. The govt allows people to make booze with out paying the tax.


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.

Then perhaps you should stop trying to tax it?


It would be necessary to continue to fund the police to enforce the growth of untaxed marijuana.

Just as we now employ so many cops to stop people making untaxed beer.

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.

How would there be a black market? You will notice so far all of the marijuana laws allow for cultivation. Do you just open your mouth to change feet?



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.

In the free market the vendor sets the price not the govt. Are you advocating communism?



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.

What you are really advocating here is that you want the govt to replace the drug dealer and keep the profi/taxt the same



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.



How is it possible to grow "illegal"marijana when marijuana cultivation is not illegal?

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.

Since your whole construct has been pulled out of your ass it is no wonder that you have doubts.

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 7/31/2014 1:20:59 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-leads-the-world-in-illegal-drug-use/

Despite tough anti-drug laws, a [2008] survey shows the U.S. has the highest level of illegal drug use in the world.

When you make drugs illegal why is it surprising?[Which would indicate that they do not work?

The World Health Organization's survey of legal and illegal drug use in 17 countries, including the Netherlands and other countries with less stringent drug laws, shows Americans report the highest level of cocaine and marijuana use.

I think there are more than 17 countries in the world.





(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 7/31/2014 1:22:26 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Well, as the article demonstrates, legality isn't the determining factor. You might try reading it before you refute it.

Just a thought.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 7/31/2014 3:55:06 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, as the article demonstrates, legality isn't the determining factor. You might try reading it before you refute it.

I did thus my ability to refute it's moronic premis based on a limited sample..

Just a thought.

This something new for you I see.


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 7/31/2014 8:17:49 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Welcome to the block list.

Geez.



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 7/31/2014 8:18:28 PM >

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 7/31/2014 9:53:57 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Duh.

The question at had is comparing a violent black market with a much more benign one.

Claiming that legal drugs will create peaceful crime lords is crap.



Muse, you seem to be confusing legalization with decriminalization. Legalizing doesn't stop gangs from shooting each other (and sleeping children through the walls) over who gets to sell drugs on what corner. It takes their asses out of the equation completely. Unlike heroin and cocaine, which is largely distributed from very specific parts of the world, and like meth, require processing, growing pot is a cottage industry. Pretty much anybody can do it anywhere, sometimes completely by accident if they are careless with the seeds. It's the difference between cognac and a local microbrew beer. Remove the legal sanctions against people for doing it, and it won't be gang-bangers going straight, it will be straights getting into a business that won't get them killed or arrested anymore.

And no. It won't be immediate rainbows and unicorns (unless they legalize shrooms while they are at it). My guess would be that we would see a temporary spike in violent crime, as the gang types scramble in a world without their best cash cow.



< Message edited by TheHeretic -- 7/31/2014 9:55:08 PM >

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/1/2014 1:20:23 AM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

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.


Just like we so for tomatoes and lettuceYou really are a phoquing moron trying to create problems where none exist.


I see the short bus is back.... Do try to keep up this time shit-for-brains. You're responding to a response to someone elses cost/benefit analysis. Since it doesn't make sense to you, maybe you should have someone read the post I'm responding to very slowly. Have them read the cost/benefit to you too so when you make your next dumb ass comment you'll have a fucking clue what the conversation is about.

Oh... and by the way douchebag, the word is spelled "fucking" not "phoquing". If your mommy won't let you type naughty words, then don't try to fake it.


quote:

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.

Only if you make it that way. How bout it is legal and that is it. I know it is too easy for punks to understand. Punks always want to make a buck on someone elses fun. There is no need to tax it. There is no need to limit it's use.


see above shithead.

quote:

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.

This would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion. The govt allows people to make booze with out paying the tax.


Says the guy who makes a habit of posting his own ignorant unsubstantiated opinions.... I actually love being the person to inform you that there are laws regulating home brewing. There are also federal regulations against running home distilleries. In my state I can legally make 100 gallons according to state law, but if the feds can prosecute someone running a still whenever they want.

Now, if you want to continue spouting your ignorant unsubstantiated opinions on that matter, post a fucking link.

quote:

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.

Then perhaps you should stop trying to tax it?


The wheel is turning, but I can see that the hamsters dead...

quote:

It would be necessary to continue to fund the police to enforce the growth of untaxed marijuana.

Just as we now employ so many cops to stop people making untaxed beer.


I just explained this. Maybe you should try spelling out big words you don't understand...

quote:

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.

How would there be a black market? You will notice so far all of the marijuana laws allow for cultivation. Do you just open your mouth to change feet?


All? There haven't been a whole hell of a lot of states to legalize pot, you dope. More importantly, the federal government hasn't gotten involved in legalization. If you think Congress will pass up all that money if marijuana is legalized, then you're in for a rude awakening.


quote:

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.

In the free market the vendor sets the price not the govt. Are you advocating communism?


Which part of this do you not understand. People will buy the cheapest product. If that product is untaxed then the government must subsidize the legal product (which they will not do) or enforce taxation and continue to use law enforcement to eliminate the tax loss. For instance, when Washington state did their cost/benefit analysis after legalization, they concluded that marijuana taxes would be worth 2 billion dollars to the state AND that the state must prioritize making sure the black markets cannot compete with the taxed product. That's just one state making 2 billion dollars off taxing marijuana.

It doesn't matter what your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion on the matter is. The feds will tax marijuana for the revenue if it is legalized at the federal level and they will prosecute people selling untaxed (that means "illegal" fuckhead) marijuana.


quote:

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.

What you are really advocating here is that you want the govt to replace the drug dealer and keep the profi/taxt the same


I advocate nothing of the sort, other than in your bizarre imagination.


quote:

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.

How is it possible to grow "illegal"marijana when marijuana cultivation is not illegal?


Tell that to the D.E.A.. I would love to hear you explain that bit of idiocy to them.

quote:

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.

Since your whole construct has been pulled out of your ass it is no wonder that you have doubts.


And yet, mysteriously, you fail once more to provide a single shred of evidence to refute anything that anyone has said in the entire thread. It would appear that anything coming out of my ass still has more basis in fact than any of your ridiculous imaginings.

-SD-

< Message edited by SadistDave -- 8/1/2014 1:21:35 AM >

_____________________________

To whom it may concern: Just because someone is in a position of authority they do not get to make up their own facts. In spite of what some people here (who shall remain nameless) want to claim, someone over the age of 18 is NOT a fucking minor!

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/1/2014 3:26:17 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		An independent scientific committee in Britain compared 20 drugs in 2010 for the harms they caused to individual users and to society as a whole through crime, family breakdown, absenteeism, and other social ills. Adding up all the damage, the panel estimated that alcohol was the most harmful drug, followed by heroin and crack cocaine. Marijuana ranked eighth, having slightly more than one-fourth the harm of alcohol.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/opinion/what-science-says-about-marijuana.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&module=MostEmailed&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/2/2014 7:30:19 AM   
hot4bondage


Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline 		Your argument ignores tobacco farming for personal use. It's legal in all 50 states.

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/3/2014 3:11:01 AM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

Your argument ignores tobacco farming for personal use. It's legal in all 50 states.


I didn't know anything about home grown tobacco, so I've been doing a little research. For about $25 someone can grow enough tobacco for a couple of years personal use. They need somewhere to prepare the seeds, which must be grown inside until they are mature enough to withstand the weather. Then someone needs enough land to plant the stuff. The plants then require fairly regular maintenance. It also turns out that tobacco plants are highly susceptible to a variety of diseases and insects. After cultivation, the leaves have to be cured properly before they can be processed to smoke. Apparently fungus mold is common in homegrown tobacco which can exacerbate the usual health concerns with tobacco.

Apparently it's difficult enough that there are so few people growing tobacco for personal use in America that no one even bothers to track it. The A.T.F. doesn't appear to track it even though it is actually regulated. Nor do the cigarette companies or seed merchants. It's so rare for someone to actually fuss with it that it's not on anyone's radar. However, homegrown tobacco is illegal to sell or trade. Until someone tries to sell it at a farmers market or barter it for homemade beer on Craigslist then they shouldn't have a problem. But, most people into the home grown tobacco seem to be in it for the considerable savings, not to try to make a profit.

Marijuana, on the other hand, is considerably less difficult to cultivate. It's probably harder to protect a marijuana plant from people who want to steal it or smoke it than it is to grow... It's so easy to grow that in 2006, according to this study citing D.E.A. statistics, marijuana was the largest cash crop in America beating out crops like corn, soybeans, oranges, hay, and yes.... even tobacco. The known value of illegally grown marijuana is about 20 times more than professionally grown tobacco.

Aside from the fact that they're both plants that people smoke, there really isn't a lot of comparison as it relates to the question of legalizing marijuana.

-SD-


_____________________________

To whom it may concern: Just because someone is in a position of authority they do not get to make up their own facts. In spite of what some people here (who shall remain nameless) want to claim, someone over the age of 18 is NOT a fucking minor!

(in reply to hot4bondage)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/3/2014 7:16:14 AM   
hot4bondage


Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline 		Yes, it's hard to grow tobacco successfully, and that's probably a major reason why it goes under the radar. I've heard that it can take up to 7 years just to cure it properly. But my point is that it's 100% legal to try, even though it's a highly addictive and potentially deadly drug. I haven't even seen any restrictions on kids growing it. Meanwhile, our government mislabels pot as a NARCOTIC, claims it has NO medical benefits, and threatens us with the DEATH PENALTY if we have more than the arbitrary limit.

The evidence is overwhelming. Prohibition is a counter-productive fraud. I hope you'll take the time to read the NYT editorial and the follow-ups. It sounds like they plan to put it all on the table.

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/4/2014 1:19:48 AM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		It's odd that you think prohibition doesn't work. I suppose when the libs stop trying to ban guns, e-cigarettes, trans-fats, salt, soft drinks, Christmas Carols, incandescent light bulbs, freedom of speech, and the rest of the laundry list of things they target for prohibition.... maybe, I'll care about legalizing pot.

Until that time, I'm quite content for the government to keep it illegal as a recreational drug. You know.... for the public good.

-SD-

_____________________________

To whom it may concern: Just because someone is in a position of authority they do not get to make up their own facts. In spite of what some people here (who shall remain nameless) want to claim, someone over the age of 18 is NOT a fucking minor!

(in reply to hot4bondage)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/4/2014 3:02:11 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

It's odd that you think prohibition doesn't work.
-SD-
.
I hope this is meant to be satire.

It seems extraordinary for any one to claim that Prohibition actually works. Despite the frequent use of the death penalty, which is used in many countries deeply implicated in the drug trade, the billions of dollars squandered annually on this hopeless campaign, there is no evidence to suggest that the supply of drugs has been reduced. The only discernible effect of prohibition is to drive the cost of drugs up, increasing profits for traffickers.

If any one seriously believes prohibition is working, I'd like 50 of whatever they're taking to produce such fanciful nonsense.

_____________________________



(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/4/2014 5:43:13 AM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

It's odd that you think prohibition doesn't work.
-SD-
.
I hope this is meant to be satire.


Actually, it was meant to show the hypocritical argument being used about how marijuana prohibition is so gawdawful wrong. When you look at the varied ans sundry things they try so hard to ban, it's pretty clear that liberals LOVE prohibition!

-SD-


_____________________________

To whom it may concern: Just because someone is in a position of authority they do not get to make up their own facts. In spite of what some people here (who shall remain nameless) want to claim, someone over the age of 18 is NOT a fucking minor!

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/4/2014 6:35:40 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

It's odd that you think prohibition doesn't work. I suppose when the libs stop trying to ban guns, e-cigarettes, trans-fats, salt, soft drinks, Christmas Carols, incandescent light bulbs, freedom of speech, and the rest of the laundry list of things they target for prohibition.... maybe, I'll care about legalizing pot.

Until that time, I'm quite content for the government to keep it illegal as a recreational drug. You know.... for the public good.

-SD-


But liberals don't really try to ban these things, and besides that, there are even some conservatives who support legalization of pot (and some liberals who support continued prohibition). It's not an automatically liberal vs. conservative issue.

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/4/2014 7:22:36 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
I think Kirata has been lighting up bowls ever since he started this thread. Haven't seen him post since the OP.

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/4/2014 7:24:21 AM   
hot4bondage


Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

It's not an automatically liberal vs. conservative issue.



Exactly. The more items you list, the more it seems like a statist vs. constitutionalist issue. For example, attempts to ban gambling, porn, and pitbulls have all had bipartisan support.




(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/6/2014 8:38:36 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		FR

Here is a bit of commentary I came across today. Thought it was worth adding.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/06/liberals_join_the_pot_party--at_last_123575.html



_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to hot4bondage)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/7/2014 9:17:37 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
"The people of Iceland are the happiest on Earth, according to an academic study reported by the Guardian in 2006. The UN’s latest Human Development Index ranking showed Iceland topping the charts as far as its economic and social issues go (wealth, healthcare, and education). Last month Iceland won another top world ranking: most pot smoked per capita.

The recent United Nations 2014 World Drug Report, which broke down pot use by nation, found that 18 percent of Iceland’s population (meaning 55,000 out of 320,000 people) lit up in 2012 (the year for which the data was collected). That’s more than the average in stereotypically pot-friendly Jamaica; it’s more than Amsterdam’s home country, the Netherlands; and it’s more than the US. (The UN report found 15% pot use in the US.)
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/guess-which-country-un-says-world-leader-smoking-marijuana

Is any one surprised?

_____________________________



(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization - 8/7/2014 9:01:31 PM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


Last month Iceland won another top world ranking: most pot smoked per capita.



I think they overdid a while back when they all smoked so much that it snarled up transatlantic air traffic and led to the cancellation of some flights. They blamed it on a volcano, but now we know the real reason.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: NY Times calls for National Marijuana Legalization Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141