"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.
Agree to an extent. I don't think this isn't about "taking something away" vs. people "not having it" now. The people have it. In abundance. I promise you for all that we confiscate a thousand times that much makes it through. Law enforcement can't stop the populace from using weed, it's not possible. The question is, do we continue to throw money at enforcement or do we flip the situation and work it to our benefit?2) One major reason that prohibition failed was because alcohol had been legal previously. Taking something away is far different than never having something. Because of this, the comparisons between the current illegality of marijuana and the prohibition of alcohol in the early 1900's are much fewer than one would think.
Legalization of marijuana will be the one issue that really tests just how much political influence social conservatives still hold.
1. Creates new jobs for people manufacturing the weed
2. Creates new jobs with infrastructure supporting this (for example head shops or bars catering specifically to smoking)
3. Reduces tax payer burden by reducing the number of drug incarcerations
4. Free's up law enforcement to focus on other forms of illegal activities
5. Taxes generated from its sales.
All of this will help with the economy most likely.
Weed is a "drug". Currently, it is one needed to be used with a prescription due to the governments restrictions on it. It does have medicinal purposes that have been studied and proven.Oh and if weed is truly a medicine, it is immoral for California to tax it. Unless the whole thing is a sham.
However, much like other drugs that started out as a prescription and turned into an over the counter thing, if you no longer require a prescription for marijuana then it is not wrong to tax it and no more immoral to tax it then it is to tax any other drug that started as prescription and moved to over the counter.
Simply because it has medicinal traits to it that proved to be useful enough to use it for those purposes despite the general ban of its use does not mean that it is immoral to tax it once it is legalized fully to be used not just for medicinal purposes but for recreational purposes. Once legalized it is no longer an item centralized in the medical field but moves into the field of standard consumption.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi
huh??? I am really trying to make a concerted effort to make sense of this post.. really. I made no assertions on consumption either increasing or decreasing.
There has to be an increase in consumption for it to be economical?? . Is $1.3 Billion > $0?
Is it not economical to capitalize on the states biggest cash crop? Or I suppose you are right, it makes ore sense to let the gangs take a cut if al that money to buy some more AK-47's, and then send the rest of that money off to Mexico, and to pay $23k per year per person for incarceration, and decimate people's chances of being productive citizens by cursing them with the stigmata of having lower job expectations due to some minor possession charge.
Last edited by marduc; 03-15-09 at 12:27 AM.
Let's try some reverse logic here and see what we come up with. Let's suppose, for instance, that prohibition were reinstated. Let's suppose alcohol were made illegal. Would you think that would make alcohol more or less difficult for kids to obtain?