|
thompsonx -> RE: Hot on pot! (12/19/2006 10:44:35 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
quote:
.......how come though Merc, the above argument isn't applied to beer or wine? Both alcoholic beverages can be made at home, often to a high quality. In the UK at least, the law allows this for personal consumption, but if sold the stuff attracts taxation. It is the act of commerce that is taxed, not the act of production.
Seems to me the main reason marijuana is illegal is because, if legalized, it would impact the profitability of producers of alcoholic beverages....and that's some strong lobbying money right there.......
philo,
You can brew beer and make wine in the US. I won't speak for every state, but personal production for consumption is permitted. In CA there are wineries that will take your home produced grapes, ferment, and bottle them for you too.
A six pack of beer can be had for less than $5.00. The best import is under $10. Table wine prices are similar. Would I consider doing better in my house? As a hobby maybe, but for normal consumption to replace the current source? I don't believe so. I remember back in college days, the idea of having my own keg and cooler was a good idea. When I had to ability to do so, the shelf life, and space requirement were factors for never going through with it. That was just to have a keg. To brew the product and getting it 'right' would take even longer. Hell I remember spending a summer trying to get the formula right for the perfect "Long Island Iced Tea". I got it by the end of the summer but by then was too drunk to write it down.
I'll agree that the alcohol lobby would be at the forefront against legalization because it would have an impact on their sales. However, from a government standpoint, it wouldn't matter. If both were taxed, assuming that pot would be taxed more heavily, there would be an increase in revenue. IF you could control it's distribution. I don't believe they can, so I don't believe, Federally, it will ever be legalized. Decriminalized, perhaps, but never legal, packaged, distributed, and taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco products.
Edited to add:
Level's comment regarding DUI type enforcement also comes into play. To my knowledge there is no quick, simple, roadside test for Marijuana as there is for alcohol. I also believe that marijuana is in the system for a long time. I seem to recall that you can text someone's hair and determine if the person used pot within the last 30 days. I don't know if the time/day of last use is as accurate as a road side Breathalyzer.
If I'm right, and I'm really not sure regarding a quick, cheap test; lack of easy enforcement for DUI is another factor.
Mercnbeth:
I think a larger lobby against the legalization of drugs would come from law enforcement and prison guard unions. Approximately 70% of the people in prison in the U.S. are there for drug related offenses. If we made drugs legal that would mean, essentially, that 70 % of the judges, prosecutors, public defenders, lawyers, cops, prison guards, prison constructors ....etc would be out of a job.
The convenient road side test for alcohol has to do with imparement. The physical test, touching your nose, walking a line etc (the blood alcohol content has been related to imparement) so that is easy to do.
The hair test is only limited by the lengtth of ones hair. The longer your hair the more history the examiner has access to.
I think the major problem is that, in the case of pot, the reactions to the drug are quite varried, depending both on the individual and the strain of pot used.
I am not convinced that if pot were legalized that people would just grow their own and not depend on an industry to supply them. While it is legal for those with a doctors recomendation to grow, the majority purchase. The overwhelming majority of pot smokers are buyers and not growers. I do not see the legalization of pot changing that.
thompson
|
|
|
|
