See, you can't tax a plant you can grow. There is no way to commercially sell marijuana, except in like cafes. That's why it isn't legal. USA has no way to market it. It gives work to the DEA. Plus, they make money off of all the teenagers they put in jail for a little bit of marijuana. It's pathetic. We are back to square one, we fought for decades for a government ran by the people, and now we are back to a central government. Stand up Americans, we have to do like our ancestors and them before, rise against.
Very good Ya know, how America's economy is down the shitter? People could press the fact that taxing marijuana would bring it back up (legalizing and taxing it, that is)
You can commercially sell it, sorry but that reason does not fly. Go to your local grocery store, lots of 'plants' being sold there. Tobacco is also a 'plant', spices, etc, etc, etc.
MJ should be very legal and it should be available to whoever wants to use it. It could boost our economy in so many ways, and the health issues are mostly bullshit. There are far more health problems caused by alcohol, hard drugs, tobacco and all the "legal" shit that is approved by the AMA and the FDA. If the gripe is they can't tax a plant, well they do it to tobacco all the time. If the government is so pissy and worried about stealing more money they don't have any real legal right to take to begin with then I'm quite sure they could find a way to limit the amount grown by farmers...and "allowing" people to grow a personal stash of 3-5 plants or something like that. Just like they do tobacco. I'd LOVE to be able to go to the local quicky mart and buy a 20 pack of nice fat joints. Smoking or eating weed does not cause cancer, it is NOT physically addictive, and it has so many health benefits that it's insane to keep this plant unavailable to whoever wants to use it except through the "black market". You can not O.D. accidentally or otherwise on weed...you will not die from using weed. Maybe if Heath Ledge had smoke him a few Joints instead of sucking down the sleeping pills he'd still be alive and well today.
I really don't think so. They've almost banned smoking cigarattes here in the UK so i doubt they'll legalise marijuana.. here anyway.
Not even close bro. 1) Can you not grow tobacco? It is just as easy for someone to plant a tobacco plant in their backyard as it is for someone to plant some ganja. The simple fact is this, Americans enjoy being able to run to the store to buy cigarettes instead of having to grow their own, and it would be the same with marijuana. It would be EXTREMELY easy to tax marijuana. Also not true, the war on drugs costs the US government BILLIONS every year. Fighting drug trafficking and imprisoning drug users is most definitely not a profitable venture.
Incorrect, it's very profitable and 'powerful' for those involved on the other side. The DEA and other agencies get huge amounts of money, so do local police departments for the war on drugs. I just got back!
They are even starting to make vending machines for it. Take a look at the thread I posted about the Pot Vending Machine. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=6356115#post6356115 Yes, I believe sooner or later marijuana will be legal in some places throughout the united states.
Hahaha, I'd be interested to see your source for this information. Here's a resource for your viewing pleasure: http://www.uua.org/socialjustice/issues/drugpolicy/35112.shtml Look specifically by the Cost: section.
You can not be serious. It's very simple here. Agencies such as the DEA get money in order to fight the war on drugs, without 'pot' or 'the war on drugs' they would not get the money or man power. It trully is not difficult to understand, I am seriously amazed that you do not. --- Who do you think is getting money from the 'cost' section. That is who is making money and power off of it.
Hahaha, I can see that with you this is a losing argument. The simple fact of the matter is this. Yes, taxpayer money goes to the DEA and local authorities to fight the war on drugs. And yes, they spend this money fighting the war on drugs. If there were no war on drugs, the DEA and local authorities would be given less money, but they'd also be spending less money. You show me an exceptionally wealthy DEA agent who has profited solely off of the government funding for the war on drugs and I'll concede my point. But until then...
With me as I know what I am talking about.. I didn't realise that it was now one person had to become 'exceptionally wealthy'. BTW you dont' think private companies who make products for the DEA and the war on drugs do not make any money, or become wealthy? Interesting.