It isn't very good economic policy for receipts, but it might be good economic policy for reduction in expenses. Not that Washington knows what that means.
For sure. This is one thing i hate the dems and repubs both about. Obama is a hypocrite for not wanting to legalize it~
Sure, personal freedoms and the government should stay out of your personal life--oh wait, that doesn't apply to a plant though, sorry guys lolz
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Yes, and many of us disagree with that assessment.
I would have liked for him to at least acknowlege the economic benefits:
-Increased revenue
- Decreased enforcement costs (courts, prisons)
- De-incentivizing violence and drug running etc.
Maybe that forum wasn't the place for a serious discussion, if so I wish he'd just said that.
Fern
Geez, I can't imagine what middle America would think if a black President, who used to take cocaine, decided to legalize marijuana:roll:. Take off your blinders, fool. Something like this is only possible if someone like a Jesse Helms proposed legalizing marijuana.
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
You are a nice little lamb. who has lost its way BA! Ba ! BA! What after effects do those perscriptions have?
Ya now whats really sucks . Some of our 9/11 people couldn't get ass. with there medical problems . So they went to cuba and were treated effectively and freely. When it came time to buy drugs. 1 womens perscription in the US was $120 . In cuba she got it for 5 cents. Our hospitals wouldn't treat them . Cubas did no questions. Something wrong with this picture?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
What... is there some kind of shortage of weed now?
Sadly, basic math doesn't work with complex scenarios like human behaviors. You gotta be able think bigger than just adding 2 and 2.
Let's not even get into the govt studies that show that marijuana has little no impact on driving ability.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Why should legalization cause more people to smoke? Correlation does not equate to causation. One could just as easily say that many people smoke just because it is illegal, and that when the thrill of breaking the law is gone, they'll quit.
As for studies:
Canada
UK
The USDOT study said, "Marijuana impairment represents a real, but secondary, safety risk. THC is not a profoundly impairing drug. Of the many psychotropic drugs, licit and illicit, that are available and used by people who subsequently drive, marijuana may well be among the least harmful."
And the MOST important thing here is that your argument is completely and ridiculous straw man. Driving under the influence of any impairing drug (including many legal and/or prescription drugs) is already illegal, and legalizing marijuana for medical and/or recreational use would not change that. Just like how alcohol is legal but driving under its influence is not.
theflyingpig
Banned
- Mar 9, 2008
- 5,616
- 18
- 0
WaTaGuMp
Lifer
- May 10, 2001
- 21,207
- 2,506
- 126
I do not agree with you, I feel if it was legal and easier for epople to get it people would either smoke more of it and or try it, you don't agree that's fine. As for the studies you show one from 1999 and 2004, maybe things have changed since those were done. The part about people quitting cause the excitement is gone is quite unique, I could see that as being possible.
Two basic points you are missing:
(a) You cannot morally legislate against a person choosing to do something to his own body, even when it's abusive.
(b) Criminalizing a drug creates adverse societal costs far greater than those that exist when it is legal. It creates a black market for the product that allows violent, non-productive members of society to financially benefit by controlling its distribution in an underground economy. Poor young men are recruited into a dangerous gang life that otherwise wouldn't. Bystanders are often killed in the crossfire of rival distributors that otherwise wouldn't. Police are often killed that otherwise wouldn't. Police resources, being finite, are diverted away from more preventing more fundamental crimes. It also costs the taxpayer enormous amounts of money to finance law enforcement against the violent activity it begets, as well as support jailed non-violent users caught possessing the product, money that otherwise would have been used towards far better ends.
Only idiots who have done zero research support criminalization of marijuana. That sums up most of America, unfortunately.
It is maybe 1% as dangerous in terms of toxicity and inebriation compared to alcohol or tobacco, we have clear historical examples of alcohol prohibition producing (b), but it was tried after an environment in which it had been legal, making it dirt obvious for people to compare the incurred costs to a legal environment. That is something we've never experienced with marijuana, which is why kooks are allowed to imagine for themselves this apocalyptic result of legalization in which everyone becomes a pot smoker and society grinds to a halt.
Well, to say that you want to legalize marijuana and make it profitable enough to tax and affect the economy is a hard sell to even the most hardcore left. That doesn't necessarily mean he's against decriminalization of it, which is a completely different thing, and much more likely to happen in the foreseeable future. If it doesn't happen in his first term, i'll be willing to bet it'll happen in the second.
WaTaGuMp
Lifer
- May 10, 2001
- 21,207
- 2,506
- 126
Umm, I just don't wanna see someone die because another person decided to get high and get behind the wheel of a car and ends up killing someone. People get drunk and THINK they are fine to drive, then they kill someone and realize they weren't. You lost me with what you posted, my bottom line is safety of other people that might suffer from someone else who is high and not in his right mind.
Oh, give me a freaking break. The human suffering produced by criminalizing it is at least 100x higher. Let me spell it out for you: when you ban a product, demand doesn't disappear. The only thing that changes is that the product's supply is reduced by imposing penalties for making or possessing it, thereby artificially increasing it's price. That INCENTIVIZES and MOTIVATES behaviors and activities that otherwise wouldn't occur. Gangs would not be killing people and each other left and right to control the drug trade if the product was not banned. Numerous producers would expand its supply and drive each other's margins down through peaceful competition, selling it in stores like alcohol or tobacco.
And FYI, the inebriating properties of marijuana are far less than alcohol, yet we universally repudiated alcohol prohibition as incurring the greater cost. The decision should be simple. It's mind-boggling, because legalizing hard drugs is a more difficult argument. But marijuana? We argue about it and it's unquestionably less dangerous than already legal drugs, by far. I'm beside myself that people can not see that, it's point blank hypocrisy and paranoia.
You know what they say about assuming, right?
I was just reading some of the history surrounding the criminalization of MJ at the federal level, and you might find it interesting.Obama, I hope, is just being politically smart. Maybe a year or two down the road he'll consider it publicly.
I still can't believe we're putting people behind bars for smoking pot. It's A BIG DRAIN on taxpayer's money. I can't believe that it would have 0 effect on our fiscal budget.
To all you naysayers, how much tax do you pay to ol' uncle sam?
44 BILLION DOLLARS is spent on enforcing this bullshit.
30 BILLION DOLLARS can be made allowing the people to do what they are currently doing anyway.
That's a ~75 BILLION DOLLAR SWING.
The illegality has not stopped people from doing it. 50 yrs ago, this might have been a worthwhile experiment but we have almost a century's worth of experience (amounting to over 2 trillions dollars spent total) to at least be cognizant of the fact that what we have been doing has done jack shit for us.
I still can't believe we're putting people behind bars for smoking pot. It's A BIG DRAIN on taxpayer's money. I can't believe that it would have 0 effect on our fiscal budget.
To all you naysayers, how much tax do you pay to ol' uncle sam?
44 BILLION DOLLARS is spent on enforcing this bullshit.
30 BILLION DOLLARS can be made allowing the people to do what they are currently doing anyway.
That's a ~75 BILLION DOLLAR SWING.
The illegality has not stopped people from doing it. 50 yrs ago, this might have been a worthwhile experiment but we have almost a century's worth of experience (amounting to over 2 trillions dollars spent total) to at least be cognizant of the fact that what we have been doing has done jack shit for us.
40Hands
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2004
- 5,042
- 0
- 71
Such a bullshit misleading study. All their talk about THC in the bloodstream correlated with car accidents. :roll:
Do you know how long THC is detectable in your bloodstream? Quite a while after the effects of marijuana are LONG gone. I see they conveniently leave that fact out when it doesn't help their propaganda.
I'm not saying that people should go out and drive after they smoke. I know I will never do it. I'm just saying that misleading people with these stupidly obvious propaganda "studies" is fucking lame. Too bad so many people are ignorant enough regarding marijuana to believe it.
This site is filled with bullshit articles related to marijuana. Just take a look at this article that was in the related section of the above link. Text The subsequent comments are pretty great though.
You don't realize how many people already smoke and drive. If you are really that worried, you should be directing your efforts towards alcoholic drunk driving, not mj high driving.
The dangers of a drunk driver vs high driver are like 10000 to 1. When you are high, you are still in control, albeit a little "slower" to respond. The few times I've driven while I was high (when I was younger), I was still completely "aware" that I was driving, aware of signs, other cars, etc. and basically drove perfect and within the speed limit. Being stoned and being drunk are two different worlds.
Even when I was super high as a kite in space, I wasn't 1% as handicapped as I am after having 5-6 beers.
Which is why it's absurd people freak out about stoned drivers. They don't really understand its not that big of a deal.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 312
-
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: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter