12/19/2008 1:04:16 PM

quick question

why do so many people qualify the legalization of marijuana with :

"The government needs to tax the hell out of it and make a lot of revenue, blah blah blah"

Ive seen that opinion a couple of times in this thread and other threads on this same issue (cause lets face it, it comes up atleast once every few months)

Would people not support legalization if it wasn't taxed?

12/19/2008 1:20:07 PM

I think they use that qualifier because it's the only way to convince [some] people that legalization is a good idea. Or, it could just be an attempt to cover up one moral dilemma with another one. It's a sin tax. I'll never understand why people are generally opposed to higher taxes, unless it's a tax increase that won't effect them.

12/19/2008 4:05:54 PM

or maybe they just want to talk about their dope concerns in polite company without everyone thinking they're a stoner.

12/19/2008 6:56:25 PM

think about it...they could sell a pack of 20 joints just like cigs for 5 a pack...and its gov weed so u get high as fuck...idk how many total g's of weed it would be but for 5 dollars shit thats awesome

12/19/2008 6:58:17 PM

Quote :

"Would people not support legalization if it wasn't taxed?"

politicians wont

12/19/2008 7:03:56 PM

Quote :

" Would people not support legalization if it wasn't taxed?"

The vast majority of Americans believe that anything remotely fun and not 100% safe needs to be taxed. It's a viewpoint that is endemic to our society.

12/19/2008 8:03:37 PM

As I think was mentioned earlier, the main reason alcohol prohibition ended wasn't tolerance for drinking or opposition to gangsters, but rather the need for tax revenue.

12/20/2008 11:18:27 AM

Quote :

"MAG: Transition insiders say Obama could decriminalize pot."

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-marijuana-legalization-122308

Decriminalization would be nice, but we'll see.

12/24/2008 7:53:47 PM

So decriminalize pot while trying to bankrupt the tobacco industry?? That makes sense.

12/24/2008 8:02:25 PM

Obama said in 2004 he was for decriminalization of pot, but not legalization....... wtf?

12/25/2008 1:27:05 AM

so... what part of the concept of "decriminalization" are you confused about?

12/25/2008 3:08:56 AM

i thought decriminalization and legalization were the same. apparently decriminalization can be partial, such as lowering penalties but not getting rid of them all together.

12/25/2008 10:42:16 AM

yeah, Colorado i think, and some other states have done that.
It basically means that pot is still technically illegal, but if caught with it (usually small protions) there is no punishment, or it's very small, like parking or speeding ticket.

[Edited on December 25, 2008 at 11:18 AM. Reason : .]

12/25/2008 11:18:11 AM

The problem with decriminalization and even legalization, as I see it, is that it only effects whether or not you'll go to jail. And I'm sure, for a lot of people, that's a big concern. But it's not the only one.

The only factor that has impacted my willingness to smoke pot over the years has been my concern about drug testing for work. This has been especially true while I've been looking for work; I get so few opportunities that if I blew a job solely based on a piss test I think I'd throw myself out a window. Never once have I been worried that the police would catch me. I've always been careful about where, when, and how much I smoke, and police intervention has just never been in the cards. But employment? That's kept me from smoking for a year.

Just because the government throws open the doors to marijuana doesn't mean employers will. Some already test for legal drugs (tobacco) as a condition of employment, and if you don't quit, you're out. I don't think most companies are going to throw out their policies overnight; momentum and a questionable belief that marijuana smokers are by necessity poor employees will keep them in place.

So even if Barack Obama directed Congress to completely legalize marijuana tax-free, I don't think it would be cause for an instant party.

---

Quote :

"Would people not support legalization if it wasn't taxed?"

I might, still, but it's hard to say; it would be a hell of a wasted opportunity. Regulation and taxation of recreational drugs (including tobacco and alcohol) seems perfectly reasonable to me, as they do present potential health and productivity issues that will ultimately draw government money. It might as well pay for itself, and more, if possible. People are still going to buy the stuff. Even with a hefty markup, I can't imagine that legalized marijuana would be more expensive than it is now. Nobody's going to say, "Nah man, I can buy this shit tax free from Julio." Well, some people might, but they'd be negligible. Some people still buy moonshine, too, but it's not a huge number.

Taxation also helps pay for regulating the stuff so we can keep an eye on the quantity, content, and potency of stuff reaching the market. We don't generally let people sell handmade cigarettes in stores or on the street. Aside from the fact that government won't allow it because it would lose tax revenue, it also prevents people from selling cigarettes with a little something extra in them.

12/25/2008 4:38:02 PM

Quote :

"Pot law could snuff out testing policy By Edward Mason | Thursday, December 25, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Local Coverage A voter-approved law reducing possession of small amounts of marijuana to a civil offense threatens to unravel drug testing of police and other public employees, the Herald has learned. The law, which goes into effect Jan. 2, prohibits government agencies and authorities from enforcing any punishment for pot possession with a fine greater than $100, according to the Massachusetts Police Chiefs Association, and defines possession so broadly as to include traces of pot in blood to urine to hair and fingernails. “This very much threatens to undermine our ability to do the drug testing we do,” said Jack Collins, an attorney for the Massachusetts Police Chiefs Association. Collins is calling for police departments to stop drug testing certain employees until the Legislature can explicitly allow public employees who fail drug tests to be punished. Without swift action, police departments and other agencies face lawsuits from unions protecting their members, Collins said. “At this point, it looks like a violation of their rights, and then there’d be a lawsuit and it would cost thousands of dollars,” he warned. Berkshire District Attorney David Capeless predicted the new law has far-reaching consequences for even school bus drivers and MBTA train operators, who could point to the law and say they can only be fined, not fired, for marijuana offenses. “People given the critical job of looking after children or the general public, there’s a greater risk now they could be high,” Capeless warned. Concerns about the viability of punishing people for flunking drug tests follow news reports of drug use by public workers. The Herald found that 77 MBTA employees have failed substance-abuse tests over the past three years. A task force set up by Public Safety Secretary Kevin Burke is examining the implications of the new law and how it will be enforced. Burke’s office is expected to provide answers to questions of drug testing by year’s end. Meanwhile, the Boston Police Department plans to continue drug testing regardless of any uncertainty, said Elaine Driscoll. “Enforcing our drug policies is non-negotiable,” Driscoll said. Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1141197 "

^looks like you could always go work in Boston

[Edited on December 25, 2008 at 6:33 PM. Reason : ]

12/25/2008 6:32:21 PM

I will be dead in the cold, cold ground before I will move to Boston.

12/26/2008 12:55:55 AM

yo i'd be willing to trade abortion for marijuana rights...just a suggestion

12/27/2008 2:25:38 AM

U.S. to yield marijuana jurisdiction to states

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/02/27/MN2016651R.DTL

About damn time

2/27/2009 4:56:51 PM

^ This is plenty reasonable in my opinion.

If california wants to allow pot vending machines for medicianal purposes the DEA shouldn't be breaking down the doors unless it is proven the drugs were obtained across state lines.

If NC doesn't want to legalize medicinal marijuana than the stoners can GTFO and move to Cali or push their activist voices to elect more drug friendly politicians.

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 5:03 PM. Reason : a]

2/27/2009 5:02:16 PM

Quote :

""[Obama] believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws" and expects his appointees to follow that policy, Schapiro said."

look at Obama out-conservativing the conservatives.

about time we got a president who supports the Tenth Amendment

2/27/2009 5:20:38 PM

Quote :

"U.S. to yield marijuana jurisdiction to states"

It's amazing the Feds would yield any power to anyone

The drug war has been an utter failure. It has cost us billions for miserable results. Civil Rights have been trampled in the name of drug enforcement. The Mexican/US border has turned into a huge gangland war.

It would cause less pain and be much less expensive to just legalize drugs and pay for everybody's treatment if needed.

You taking drugs currently does not violate any of my rights. The question comes down to "Who owns your body- you or the state?

2/27/2009 7:40:03 PM

^ Let's be clear, here - if true (and I'll believe it when I see it), this concerns state laws regarding medical marijuana only. This is not a wholesale devolution of authority on the matter of drug policy back to the states.

Don't get me wrong - it's still a fantastic step forward - if he actually goes through with it. But this is not by any means a wholesale abdication of the War on Drugs by any means.

2/27/2009 9:12:45 PM

^^^ He use to teach a class on the constitution, i'd expect all his positions surrounding it to be very deliberate.

2/27/2009 9:20:46 PM

okay lets be serious for a minute...

do you really trust our country with legalized pot?

this is the same country that voted bush in a second term.

2/27/2009 10:30:14 PM

actually, that would be an argument FOR legalizing pot. prohibiting it sure didnt get us anywhere.

2/27/2009 10:41:56 PM

i don't remember where i read this, but i read the idea of legalizing growing and consuming pot, but not selling it. the logic being that we don't need another (arguably) semi-harmful substance being advertised to kids like cigarettes and alcohol. and pot is easily growable in anyone's garden (or closet). of course people would still sell it on a small scale. but there wouldn't be a huge big-business lobbying and advertising arm helping to make sure that each successive generation smokes more and more pot.

anyway. i'm not really sure what i think of the idea, but i'd be interested in what people here think about the idea.

2/27/2009 10:45:26 PM

Legal to grow, legal to possess, legal to use, but illegal to sell would be an acceptable compromise. I'm about as libertarian as you can get so I'm all for making it totally legal, but I'd be willing to accept legalization of personal use and manufacture as a good step towards sanity.

2/28/2009 12:26:42 AM

Quote :

"quick question why do so many people qualify the legalization of marijuana with : "The government needs to tax the hell out of it and make a lot of revenue, blah blah blah" Ive seen that opinion a couple of times in this thread and other threads on this same issue (cause lets face it, it comes up atleast once every few months) Would people not support legalization if it wasn't taxed?"

Sin taxes are easy targets for taxation. Regardless, consumption taxes of any kind are preferable. If you want less of something, tax it. I'd much rather see taxes on carbon, cigs, luxury goods than a hike in the other usual targets (payroll taxes, ugh).

To answer your last question: yes, I would.

[Edited on March 3, 2009 at 7:22 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2009 7:22:19 PM

It should be legal and it shouldn't be taxed anymore than any other commodity. I don't think alcohol or cigarettes should be taxed anymore than other commodities either.

Sin taxes exist because they are just easier to sell to weak minded people.

3/3/2009 10:54:54 PM

more like, Puffmaster, amirite!!!1

3/4/2009 11:14:14 AM

Quote :

"Sin taxes exist because they are just easier to sell to weak minded people. "

Sin taxes exist because there are weak ignorant people.

I do not like sin taxes but I understand why they exist.

Until we return to a nation where personnal responsibility and accountability are values than we are of in need of a sin tax.

[Edited on March 4, 2009 at 5:05 PM. Reason : a]

3/4/2009 5:03:02 PM

^^

On the tangential topic of taxes. I think the Lottery System is the the slickest tax of all. A tax on poor people who are too dumb to realize it. Uncle Sam really slid that one in really easy, lots of Vaseline there.

3/4/2009 9:32:52 PM

^ I honestly do not have a problem with this. If poor people are stupid enough to hand over a bunch of money every week for the state run lottery to which they have little chance of winning than that's there own problem. Better paying the "voluantary supplemental education tax" than 40's, drugs, or spinners. Really the lottery is just a way for the state of NC to divert welfare money from the federal gov't to the state.

3/5/2009 8:22:44 AM

Quote :

"Sin taxes exist because they are just easier to sell to weak minded people."

I figured it was just an attempt to curb certain kinds of social behavior. Plus people, on average, would still continue to buy the product irrespective of how high the tax got - they are placed on addictive substances after all. It's an easy way to raise revenue without the worry of the additional tax rapidly diminishing demand.

^^Uncle Sam slid that one in? Seems like people were in an uproar and were demanding a lottery a few years ago (in NC). They even held vote after vote on it until they got the outcome they wanted.

Quote :

"Legal to grow, legal to possess, legal to use, but illegal to sell would be an acceptable compromise."

Hate to be too cynical, but how is the government going to get their cut in that scheme?

[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 9:00 AM. Reason : -]

3/5/2009 9:00:00 AM