What Attitude Do DP'ers Have On Marijuana Law?

I with you... right up to that last line. Term limits don't appear to accomplish much except to give fresh meat to the lobbyists.

 

No no, the plot of the book is a group of ex seals assassinate 3 senators, then they force congress into some changes with a little blackmail.

 

Sounded interesting. I looked up a review on Amazon...

How many lobbyists do they take out?

 

I couldn't agree more with you. Just think of all the Tax Dollars we could save and gain by legalizing Marijuana.

 

I fail to see any significant tax revenue from something that people can grow themselves. Or something that people can buy from friends that know how to grow.

 

Why would people start growing it when hardly anyone grows it now? Most people buy it, and they will carry on buying it when it becomes legal.

Convinience is the key. People could grow tobacco and brew beer themselves too, but they don't.

 

I dont smoke the stuff, but I drink alcohol... and having one legal and the other illegal is obviously silly (let's see, one makes you intoxicated and the other makes you intoxicated... pick a position). Having police chase after marijuana users/sellers is misuse of tax dollars, it employs scarce resources in a wasteful activity when they could be better utilized elsewhere. Paying to imprison people for something no more harmful than drinking beer is similarly silly. They could be out on the streets instead of in prison, and they cost less and pay more taxes on the outside than inside. Even absent the argument against hypocrisy and unfair penalization, there's still a simple financial argument in favor of legalization.

There really isnt a valid argument against fully legalizing marijuana that I can think of. About the only one that stands to lose from it is the guy selling beer... he'll have a home-grown competitor

 

While I tend to agree, I am also aware of the slippery slope argument.

If we legalize pot, what do we do with meth, opiates, coke, etc.

Some of these clearly present a greater danger than pot, and are statistically associated with other, more serious criminal activity than is pot.

(Disclaimer - I hate tweakers, can only marginally tolerated junkies and coke heads, and find most pot heads harmless and generally more pleasant than alcoholics.)

While I find the option of letting them all kill themselves off with their drug of choice attractive, I am not at all sure it is realistic. Few (especially hard drug users) confine their 'criminal' activities to their drugs.

Would the legalization of pot be a step towards further erosion of drug laws. Is the next one absinthe, then mushrooms, then coca, then opium - all 'natural' highs?

Thoughts?

 

I'm sure that argument was presented when they re-legalized alcohol. Those things will all get dealt with on a case by case basis, and really don't have a lot of bearing on this argument at all. If one day we, as a nation or state, decide to make cocaine legal, it will be so and we will deal with the unique and individual problems that come from that decision.

Personally, I would say legalize them all, and empty the convicted drug users out our prisons(from the other thread). The nation is DEFINITELY not ready to do that yet.

 

An economist from Harvard calculated that the US will save about $75 billion each year if they legalized all drugs that are now illegal. Now, pot would not be the single substance that would bring most money if legalized, but it is the drug that is most harmless compared to other illegal drugs, and alcohol.

 

If you're talking about Jeffrey A. Miron, the figure is more around 17-18 bil a year.

 

I was raised around enough good Baptists to know that slippery slope arguments often start a little too far up the slope. Sure... it's true... holding hands on the bus *could* lead to children born outta wedlock and eventual eternal damnation, but is it really what we oughta be worried about?

 

To add to that Rob, the costs of keeping mary jane illegal are probably a lot more than the costs of legalizing all drugs in the first place.

I won't argue here for complete legalization, but I will say that our prohibition on "dangerous" substances keeps the black market and gang violence running smoothly. People fear that others will become violent and harm others if we legalize the harder drugs, but they fail to realize the violence that already is created from keeping them banned.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

"A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy — $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings, and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue ($6.7 billion from marijuana, $22.5 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs)".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization

"Milton Friedman estimated that over 10,000 deaths a year are caused by the criminalization of drugs, and if drugs were to be made legal innocent victims such as those shot down in drive by shootings, would cease to come about."

 

Pot prohibition is only a minor problem compared to the criminalization of all the other illicit drugs, but pot is the drug which should be legalized first, imo. And marijuana is the illicit drug that is used by most people in Europe and US, so it would be the most logical first step towards legalization of all drugs.

 

Milton Friedman wrote my Econ 101 textbook and I hit college in the 1970s. Gotta feeling his grasp of gang warfare is probably limited to having seen West Side Story the year it opened on Broadway. I wouldnt put a helluvalotta stock in what he says on that particular topic. Economists are lucky when they get stuff about economics right, much less anything else.

 

Wow, he must have done a more comprehensive 2008 edition. I guess the 2005 study was based on just mary jane.

 

You are correct about marijuana being difficult to tax. Basically it's a weed and easy to grow.

A middle ground is to legalize the medical marijuana dispensaries so that we will be able to tax the pot heads.

Even will alcohol it's difficult to control. Most people don't realize that there are still thousands of bootleggers and ATF Agents chasing them down. Alcohol generates billions in tax revenue. But Alcohol is easier to control than drugs due to quality issues.

More or less regulation of alcohol started in the early industrial period with the mass production of gin. At that time it was possible to buy a bottle of gin for a few pennies. The problem was so bad that most workers were drunk 24/7 and not showing up for work. Parliment then started to impose 'Gin Laws' to control the problem with taxes.

Even in the US, the first rebellion against the Government was a Whisky Rebellion that was put down by George Washington.

THe biggest issue with drugs is the medical costs. Basically you will have millions of herion addicts cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars to treat.

 

Not likely, a few countries with more "liberal" regulations than US, UK, and some other countries, have documented less problems with heroin users, and other drug use. These countries includes Portugal, Switzerland, Netherlands, and (for heroin) the few places in Germany where heroin users can get heroin subscribed by doctors.

Most of the cost of Heroin use (both to society and the individuals) is caused by the criminalization, which causes the price of heroin to be much higher than legal drugs. This fact is already well documented of you care to google.

And there is no documented cure against drug addiction, or drug use, as opposed to many people (but far from 99%) who had cancer, and it was cured. Or Appendicitis, which is easily cured in most decent standard hospitals.

Human mentality, behavior, biology etc, do not work like if it is legal it is ok, and if it is illegal it is not ok. Just look at mankind's history the last 30.000 years.

 

Actually the fact that marijuana is prohibited and is a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance makes medical costs much much higher and keeps people from getting the treatment they need.

The first premise of your second statement, that there would be millions of heroin addicts, is mere speculation and really baseless. The second part is dependent upon universal health care.