Legalize it?
 

Funny thing is that's exactly my view on Mary Jane. Never tried it, legalize it, but don't tax me on it. Oh yeah, that's where my dot was too :lol:

If you're never going to buy it, why care if it's taxed? In fact, you should be all for taxing it, as you'll benefit from the massive new income to the gov't w/o paying into it at all!

How would taxing it help? Wouldn't everyone just grow their own?

Can you grow your own tobacco? Can you brew your own beer? Can you raise your own beef, chicken, vegetables, etc?

Of course you can... but who does all that? It's far more convenient to buy it at a store. Weed's no different, except that perhaps more people grow their own right now because it's illegal to buy. But people are lazy. Weed growers in a weed-legal society will be just like home brewers.

Maybe because I left myself open for the what-if's.

Unless they already have a plant to germinate or clone, they'll have to buy the seeds. Plus the soil/hydro set up, probably lights so you can have it year round... It's still helping the economy and increasing tax revenue.

I guess it depends on how much pot would be sold for. Most of the people who I grew up with that smoked pot were lazy like you said. Most of them didn't have a job which means they had nothing but time on their hands and little money for pot. I doubt the cost to grow pot would be anywhere near the cost to brew beer and it can't require much skill either. Its not like were making crystal meth here.

That being said, I can't see any good coming from legalizing weed.

I dunno. I'm not interested in smoking weed in the least bit... yet I'd love to see it legalized and taxed. The income from weed taxes, plus the reduced cost of arresting, prosecuting, and jailing weed offenders would be a huge boon for the gov't. Hell, if CA did it, they could probably fix their budget issues. But if NV did it first, we'd make a *ton* of money from all the Californians coming to buy. Granted there would be a ton of smoked out hippies everywhere while it was novel, but the tax revenue would make up for that IMO. I'd much rather have a regulated, state sponsored, state taxed, pot industry than a state income tax, which is the road we're on with the gambling industry taking such a big hit lately.

Plus, in the long run, legalized weed should result in reduced crime, and reduced use of harder drugs, since the only reason weed was a "gateway" drug was because you had to buy it from a drug dealer who'd offer you harder shit on the side.

IMO, legal weed makes economic and social sense. It's kind of a no-brainer. We just need all the people that were brainwashed by the refer madness campaigns in the 50's to die off or get out of the gov't.

What I can't believe is that hemp isn't replacing wood for fiber products. What's that about? It's way more renewable. Stupid logging special interest groups.

I don't know enough about weed to formulate a good argument about it being an added danger to society. I have never smoked it so I don't know how it makes you feel. However I have heard that song about the guy who ended up doing nothing "cause I got high". So if pot makes people want to sit at home and do nothing but stare at a black light poster, legalize it. If pot makes people want to go out and do things because they are now invincible, keep it locked down. Maybe pot will diffuse a lot of problems like you are saying. Maybe it will turn the drunks that want to get violent into lazy sleepy drunks that don't. Either way, I have never seen a stoned guy win a fight so maybe it will just weaken the drunks and make them easier to deal with.

This. I'm the same as you - never gonna try it, but I really have no idea why it is outlawed when you can buy all the hard liquor you want. Taxation of it would be fantastic.

The problem is mostly a de-regulation issue rather than popular opinion - I bet popular opinion says to legalize it. Getting the gov't to go back on something that large, that justifies a metric a$$-load of law enforcement spending and takes up wayyyy to much of the legal industry, will be very hard to do. Gov't as an organism doesn't want to stop spending at all, even if there is nothing left to do but raise taxes.

In terms of behavior modification... weed is a million times better than alcohol. Weed doesn't make people violent, boastful, aggressive, etc. Weed just makes people sleepy and hungry, which is why it's such a great help to people on cancer and aids drugs, since they have such a hard time keeping food down with all those other chemicals in them.

Also, weed isn't physically addictive (it is perhaps psychologically), and you can't OD on weed. So it's safer than alcohol too.

I'm not advocating that people should all smoke weed. Just that as a society we spend a lot of money, time, and even lives fighting to keep people from using it, when we've already got legal things that are worse like alcohol and tobacco. If you're going to be a burn-out pot-head, I don't blame the pot... I blame the pot-head. At least alcoholics and smokers can be actually addicted to their vice. Legalizing weed shouldn't make a bunch of people lazier than they already are.

My friend of mine from college always referred to Libertarians as "pot-smoking Republicans".

Sometimes, I think that's the best definition of Libertarians I've ever heard.

Nick, I wouldn't argue with that...

Also, Scott, you have excellent points, I agree entirely. There are so many revenue opportunities tied to legalizing marijauna.

I suspect that even if it is legalized, much of the taxation would just go to new and existing programs to support its legalization. Off the top of my head, maybe more civil resources would be needed for ATF(and M?) agencies, law enforcement due to increased dui's, counseling services for people who are going to claim a condition due to addiction, etc.

Or, gun-toting liberals.

Pot is so much less of a hazard/burden to society than alcohol, tobacco, and high fructose corn syrup (as examples). Only 2 options then:

1. Legalize pot... and tax it and regulate it.
   or...
   
2. Outlaw alcohol, tobacco, and high fructose corn syrup.

I've known lots and lots of pot smokers in my life, and it never killed anybody that I know of. It never really affected their overall lives at all, except maybe one or two who just were overall substance-abuser types, and it was a sideshow compared to everything else. Yet in my immediate family I have known plentiful disease and death - alcoholism (father dead, brother dead), lung cancer (aunt dead, brother-in-law dead), obesity (many...), type-2 diabetes (2 brothers), etc. It always baffled me - why outlaw something so mellow and benign whilst allowing stuff that fucks people up so often in so many ways. The only two logical choice are those two above.

Never killed anyone? Have you seen this PSA?

The reason pot isn't legal and isn't going to be int he near future is that too many voters are still not interested in changing anything that isn't preventing them from doing something they want to do. That, and the quasi-morality/religious blocs that think anything they won't do is evil and should be disallowed. So despite the fact that a fair percentage of politicians would not mind legalizing marijuana (taxation would be a separate issue) they can't make any waves over it for a few more decades while society catches up to logic.

This issue is why we still have social-political problems at all. If politicians were able to free themselves from the burden of constantly trying to get re-elected, they'd be much more effective as policy makers. Maybe Congress should serve 10 year terms with a 2 term limit. We should get at least 3-5 years of campaign-free work out of them that way I think...

I think that's wrong. Pot will be legal in the next 5 years, probably not nation-wide, but as soon as the Federal Gov't drops it as a schedule 1 drug, some states will immediately legalize it. And it will be legal because it'll be a tax revenue generator. And that tax income for their states will give them the money to pay for programs while lowering other taxes, which is a great way to get reelected.

The writing is already on the wall for this, with bills in the House popping up and actually making it to committee for discussion: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/frank.marijuana/

I can't imagine those programs, even if they were expanded, could possible cost more than what we're already spending on fighting the drug war in Mexico and the cost of housing so many offenders in jail.

Think of all the drug lords we'd be putting out of business by legalizing pot! Legalizing it may actually be the only way to win the war on drugs.

Black people wanted their freedom so they got out and did work. Gays wanted to get married so they got out the magic markers and made signs and did work. If potheads want to get a law passed they will have to get off the couch to do it. How many of the people smoking pot today care if its legalized? They are getting it now without it being taxed so why would they now want The Man to get involved?

They don't. Legal pot doesn't benefit the pot heads. It benefits everyone. I think if the general population were more educated about it, legalization would be a populist movement, not avspecial intrest movement. Relying on pot heads to spearhead this movement would mean waiting forever.

And this may be only due to the financial crisis not because it's been a long time coming.

I guess that depends on what you consider "a long time coming". If you think about the fear campaign from the 50's and the push shortly thereafter by hippies to counter it in the 60's... well you can say it's been coming for about 40-50 years. But on the other hand, it's only recently that reasonably, non-dirty-hippy adults have been advocating legal pot on the basis of economy, logic, and fact rather than peace, love, and hippyness. So in that sense, it's only been coming for about 10 years, with the economy being the impetus that might actually get it legalized.