this is a good article about the politics of legalizing in California.
$1.3 billion in sales taxes ... Californians consume $15 billion worth a year ?!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090706/abramsky
i think what would work is to have it taxed at the point of sale, by the state & the US gov.
with about 50 cents a gram going to the state (which is what it comes to with
sales tax), and $1 a gram going to the US government.
$1.3 billion in sales taxes ... Californians consume $15 billion worth a year ?!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090706/abramsky
i think what would work is to have it taxed at the point of sale, by the state & the US gov.
with about 50 cents a gram going to the state (which is what it comes to with
sales tax), and $1 a gram going to the US government.
The mere fact you have lousy neighbors in your confined living quarters is not nearly sufficient reason to oppose pot legalization for an entire nation. You've already found the right solution - move! And just for the record, it isn't just "potheads" who support this - I've never smoked pot and have no real desire to do so, but I don't think it's the gov't's right to say I can't.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Sorry Derek, but wasting your time thinking that someday the US will have a full scale decriminalization of drugs just doesn't seem worth it.
We are one of the more conservative countries in the "Western" world. Until you see liberal countries start to allow heroin possession, you really shouldn't hold your breath about this one.
The problem for the legalize MJ crowd is that they try and use MMJ as a springboard. It sounds like you don't really care about the sick people, it sounds like you just want it as a stepping stone to full-blown legalization so you can get stoned and eat Doritos.
Medical is as far as it is going to go in this lifetime. People are finally seeing that ingested natural THC is an amazing thing for people in pain.
Here in CA, you can figure out how to get your pot card extremely easy if you really want it. I think that is about as liberal as the drug laws are going to get.
You will see moves towards needle exchange, etc....but as far as the actual substances, pot is the only one with a chance to be moved off its current schedule. And even then, it would be for medicinal use with a doctor's written consent.
^^
It is a bit of a stretch to say that I (or the rest of the legalization crowd) only want medical marijuana approved because I/we also want it legalized/regulated. They are two different issues and I (and most others) whole-heartedly believe the medical issue to be the most pressing matter as people are dying without access to marijuana for medical use.
This argument would be similar to, if we lived in a country without freedom of speech and freedom of press, saying that those who support freedom of the press only want free speech to use as a spring board to achieving freedom of the press. That only those who support free speech and not freedom of the press are the only ones who can and should make valid arguments.
(Un)fortunately(?) a lot of the arguments that support the efficacy and especially SAFETY of MMJ are also very valid argument in support of legalization and regulation. I'm not sure which it would be, but it just /feels/ like a logical fallacy to discredit one supporting argument depending on the position it is intended to support.
I'll be incredibly happy if we, as a nation, gain medical use of cannabis. This goal is an end in itself.
I'll also be incredibly happy if we achieve legalization/regulation similar to alcohol for cannabis. This is a separate issue and should not be considered anything to "springboard" to from medical use as long as the arguments provided are sound and logical and scientific and reasonable.
Those who argue for the use of any controlled substance as a medicine cannot give merit to the idea that such use is only a springboard for anyone to legalize anything for personal use -- otherwise we would not have access to anything that was deadly or addictive at all for any reason even when it could save lives.
It is a bit of a stretch to say that I (or the rest of the legalization crowd) only want medical marijuana approved because I/we also want it legalized/regulated. They are two different issues and I (and most others) whole-heartedly believe the medical issue to be the most pressing matter as people are dying without access to marijuana for medical use.
This argument would be similar to, if we lived in a country without freedom of speech and freedom of press, saying that those who support freedom of the press only want free speech to use as a spring board to achieving freedom of the press. That only those who support free speech and not freedom of the press are the only ones who can and should make valid arguments.
(Un)fortunately(?) a lot of the arguments that support the efficacy and especially SAFETY of MMJ are also very valid argument in support of legalization and regulation. I'm not sure which it would be, but it just /feels/ like a logical fallacy to discredit one supporting argument depending on the position it is intended to support.
I'll be incredibly happy if we, as a nation, gain medical use of cannabis. This goal is an end in itself.
I'll also be incredibly happy if we achieve legalization/regulation similar to alcohol for cannabis. This is a separate issue and should not be considered anything to "springboard" to from medical use as long as the arguments provided are sound and logical and scientific and reasonable.
Those who argue for the use of any controlled substance as a medicine cannot give merit to the idea that such use is only a springboard for anyone to legalize anything for personal use -- otherwise we would not have access to anything that was deadly or addictive at all for any reason even when it could save lives.
EXman
Lifer
- Jul 12, 2001
- 20,079
- 15
- 81
Hmm I guess some people belittle people with opinions that do not match their own.
Very adult of them.
I don't care for pot smokers, pot, drugs in general. I do not need to tell you why. And comparing it with alcohol isn't the same. A rationalization does not prove anything. You'd like to think that it is because it fits your agenda.
example having a pinic :
Hey want a beer with dinner honey or a soda?
or
Hey honey you want to spark up or have a cig during dinner honey?
which do you think might bother more people during dinner?
Not to mention all the Doritos would soon be missing! I have more reasons but trying to convince you why doesn't matter to me in the least.
I'm blah blah blah no you are wrong blah blah blah... no one changes their mind.
/end thread.
You have no reasons for anything at all, and keep mentioning Doritos like you have a goldfish memory.
Plus you eat dinner honey.
I don't follow your argument at all. Things that bother people should be criminalized? That would be a whole of stuff...
what a terrible terrible thing...
jokes aside...i agree with your point that most people just use the MMJ as a stepping stone.....it just appears disingenuous...
MMJ should be a separate issue from total legalization to avoid this
If you won't even present your reasoning it only leads one to believe that you are using anecdotal evidence and that you have no REAL basis.
you have obviously still not read my post if you believe I was attacking a metaphor. I can walk you through it:
quippy joke ... referencing the fact that we have tried the prohibition of intoxicants in the past.
I bolded the other part this time so you could see that the point was to say that what happened with alcohol prohibition has an is happening with drug prohibition. The result of the policy is the same. Here I depart from referencing alcohol entirely and continue on to talk about drug prohibition as indicated by the last sentence in the above paragraph.
The "of drugs" qualifier added to help clarify in case it was missed the first time.
Prohibition is big business. It makes government bigger; it makes the people less powerful. It provides jobs for prison construction and law enforcement and enables drug companies to retain control of that to which we have access for the treatment of our health. This is not a straw man, it is a fact. I see this as a negative side effect of prohibition. Prohibitionists either do not or do not realize that this is the result of their policy.
The first half of this sentence is fact. Hemp paper is a much more renewable and less destructive and cheaper form than tree pulp paper. Hemp can be used to make plastics and fuel. In fact, Henry Ford built a car body from Hemp plastic and envisioned a future where cars would run on Hemp fuel. Before prohibition that is. At the same time period that Popular Science (iirc) called Hemp the "First Billion Dollar Crop." The second half of the sentence does draw a conclusion for which I didn't provide enough information. Sorry.
Do a little research on Hearst, Dow and Anslinger and you'll see how the data was manipulated by yellow journalism and government protection of corporate interests. This shit is way too out there for me to make up ... and hopefully it'll piss you off as much as it did me when I first looked into it all.
::EDIT:: for spacing and readability
quippy joke ... referencing the fact that we have tried the prohibition of intoxicants in the past.
I bolded the other part this time so you could see that the point was to say that what happened with alcohol prohibition has an is happening with drug prohibition. The result of the policy is the same. Here I depart from referencing alcohol entirely and continue on to talk about drug prohibition as indicated by the last sentence in the above paragraph.
The "of drugs" qualifier added to help clarify in case it was missed the first time.
Prohibition is big business. It makes government bigger; it makes the people less powerful. It provides jobs for prison construction and law enforcement and enables drug companies to retain control of that to which we have access for the treatment of our health. This is not a straw man, it is a fact. I see this as a negative side effect of prohibition. Prohibitionists either do not or do not realize that this is the result of their policy.
The first half of this sentence is fact. Hemp paper is a much more renewable and less destructive and cheaper form than tree pulp paper. Hemp can be used to make plastics and fuel. In fact, Henry Ford built a car body from Hemp plastic and envisioned a future where cars would run on Hemp fuel. Before prohibition that is. At the same time period that Popular Science (iirc) called Hemp the "First Billion Dollar Crop." The second half of the sentence does draw a conclusion for which I didn't provide enough information. Sorry.
Do a little research on Hearst, Dow and Anslinger and you'll see how the data was manipulated by yellow journalism and government protection of corporate interests. This shit is way too out there for me to make up ... and hopefully it'll piss you off as much as it did me when I first looked into it all.
::EDIT:: for spacing and readability
So, what the point of your post because it looks like flame bait to me. Maybe you should stop posting.
It's okay.
Some people find the best way to effectively employ a logical fallacy like ad hominem attacks ("Why don't you people learn how to actually debate") is by deflecting others with false accusations of the use of another logical fallacy (in this case the strawman).
It is good for others to see this type of trick so they can learn how to identify and defeat it.
EXman
Lifer
- Jul 12, 2001
- 20,079
- 15
- 81
See 3 Attacks responses and that was just a lame joke. I've stated my opinion years ago. Go back and look for a thread 4-7 years ago. There is no REAL reason for me to state anything else. Potheads get all kranky and try to use logic to support smoking something that intoxicates you.
Why bother... Keep attacking me no matterThe waste of Federal and State resources investigating, arresting, trying, and incarcerating marijuana users, growers, and distributors is a heinous insult to the Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism which motivated such "Crazy unAmerican Radicals" as George Washington to raise hemp from the beginning of this country on forward.
It's always good to have a historical perspective on the subject. There was indeed a time when hemp was a big deal - in fact in the latter half of the 19th century Big Hemp (don't laugh, I kid you not, it existed) was this sinister industrial-agriculutral force that would regularly throw its weight around trying to suppress other industries.
While it is true the products made from hemp are not illegal, the hemp to make these products was grown in another country. If farmers could grow hemp in this country we would never have to cut down another tree to make paper. Guess who really, really doesn?t want that to happen. Not to mention clothing production from hemp and probably plenty of other uses I don?t even know about. I think they can make ethanol out of it too, but I am not sure on that.
Don't think the prohibitionist reactionaries won't be lying in wait to make political hay out of any ammunition they can come up with once it becomes a commercial market substance, either. They won't go away if its in their face as a new consumer fad. But if cannabis is just something that the people like to to use grow for themselves, I predict it will sink out of sight as an issue.
It's high time (no pun intended) for lawmakers to seriously address this issue with a modicum of reason and objectivity. The simple fact is, there are drugs in your community. There have always been drugs in your community. There will always be drugs in your community. There is nothing anybody can do to stop it. Nearly 40 years into the "drug war" not only are the drugs that they initially targeted cheaper, they're more potent.
The only question is who you want in control of this industry: government and private enterprise, regulating age restrictions, purity, potency, and quality, or criminals at gunpoint. One thing to keep in mind is that when Miller Lite and Bud Light are fighting for market advantage, all you get are silly commercials featuring bikini clad women - not 5 year olds getting gunned down in the crossfire.
It's always good to have a historical perspective on the subject. There was indeed a time when hemp was a big deal - in fact in the latter half of the 19th century Big Hemp (don't laugh, I kid you not, it existed) was this sinister industrial-agriculutral force that would regularly throw its weight around trying to suppress other industries.
While it is true the products made from hemp are not illegal, the hemp to make these products was grown in another country. If farmers could grow hemp in this country we would never have to cut down another tree to make paper. Guess who really, really doesn?t want that to happen. Not to mention clothing production from hemp and probably plenty of other uses I don?t even know about. I think they can make ethanol out of it too, but I am not sure on that.
Don't think the prohibitionist reactionaries won't be lying in wait to make political hay out of any ammunition they can come up with once it becomes a commercial market substance, either. They won't go away if its in their face as a new consumer fad. But if cannabis is just something that the people like to to use grow for themselves, I predict it will sink out of sight as an issue.
It's high time (no pun intended) for lawmakers to seriously address this issue with a modicum of reason and objectivity. The simple fact is, there are drugs in your community. There have always been drugs in your community. There will always be drugs in your community. There is nothing anybody can do to stop it. Nearly 40 years into the "drug war" not only are the drugs that they initially targeted cheaper, they're more potent.
The only question is who you want in control of this industry: government and private enterprise, regulating age restrictions, purity, potency, and quality, or criminals at gunpoint. One thing to keep in mind is that when Miller Lite and Bud Light are fighting for market advantage, all you get are silly commercials featuring bikini clad women - not 5 year olds getting gunned down in the crossfire.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter