• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?

TheNextEra said:
So let me get this straight, you are against legalizing marijuana because if it is legalized for those over 21, those underage people that ALREADY get it might still get it.

What an idiotic reason. People like you are the ones that thought prohibition actually worked :roll:
Click to expand...

1) If marijuana is legalized it will be more available to those that are under 21, as it will be more accessible in general. That doesn't mean it should remain illegal, but it is still a fact.

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.
 
TheNextEra said:
So let me get this straight, you are against legalizing marijuana because if it is legalized for those over 21, those underage people that ALREADY get it might still get it.

What an idiotic reason. People like you are the ones that thought prohibition actually worked :roll:
Click to expand...

People like you tend to post hastily. Nowhere in this thread have I said I was 'against legalizing marijuana.'

What I have said is that it's ridiculous to assume that by legalizing it it will be more difficult for those under 21 to obtain.

I've also said it's a hare-brained idea to believe that taxing marijuana will solve California's financial difficulties.

;)
 
Last edited:
Grateful Heart said:
People like you tend to post hastily. Nowhere in this thread have I said I was 'against legalizing marijuana.'

What I have said is that it's ridiculous to assume that by legalizing it it will be more difficult for those under 21 to obtain.

I've also said it's a hare-brained idea to believe that taxing marijuana will solve California's financial difficulties.

;)
Click to expand...

Speaking of posting too quickly, no one is talking about SAVING their financial difficulties, the bill is intended to ASSUAGE their difficulties.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
1) If marijuana is legalized it will be more available to those that are under 21, as it will be more accessible in general. That doesn't mean it should remain illegal, but it is still a fact.
Click to expand...

Being more readily available doesn't mean those that don't use it would use it. It just means it is readily available for those that ALREADY use it anyway. Not a reason to make it illegal.

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Marijuanna, Opiates, etc were once legal as well. The only reason they were made illegal, was because of the Chinese immigration.
 
TheNextEra said:
Marijuanna, Opiates, etc were once legal as well. The only reason they were made illegal, was because of the Chinese immigration.
Click to expand...

Lawsuit by DuPont, actually.

Turns out you can make all kinds of quality products with weed at a fraction of the cost.

But hippies in CA are just looking for any excuse to get high, this is just the latest scam.
 
Jerry said:
Lawsuit by DuPont, actually.

Turns out you can make all kinds of quality products with weed at a fraction of the cost.

But hippies in CA are just looking for any excuse to get high, this is just the latest scam.
Click to expand...


Its legality or illegality has absolutely no impact on whether or not they are getting high. The hippies and the millions and millions of NON HIPPIES will continue to get high legal or not.
 
marduc said:
Speaking of posting too quickly, no one is talking about SAVING their financial difficulties, the bill is intended to ASSUAGE their difficulties.
Click to expand...

I know you think you were being smart here. But in your attempt to recover from your last false assumption you've made another.

And this time I'm not going to point out the error. I'm going to let you stew over it.

:rofl
 
Grateful Heart said:
I know you think you were being smart here. But in your attempt to recover from your last false assumption you've made another.

And this time I'm not going to point out the error. I'm going to let you stew over it.

:rofl
Click to expand...

There have been no false assumptions here. Please define "help rescue" if that is what you are alluding to.


pssst.. I think you are confusing me with TheNextEra, take a look our names are spelled differently :D
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Being more readily available doesn't mean those that don't use it would use it. It just means it is readily available for those that ALREADY use it anyway. Not a reason to make it illegal.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it should be illegal. But it's accessibility will allow more of those in the cusp to use and allow those who use to get it more often.



Marijuanna, Opiates, etc were once legal as well. The only reason they were made illegal, was because of the Chinese immigration.
Click to expand...

Their use was miniscule compared to alcohol use prior to it's prohibition.
 
Jerry said:
Lawsuit by DuPont, actually.

Turns out you can make all kinds of quality products with weed at a fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...

On target. Not a lot of folks know this.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
1) If marijuana is legalized it will be more available to those that are under 21, as it will be more accessible in general. That doesn't mean it should remain illegal, but it is still a fact.
Click to expand...
Agree.
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.
Click to expand...
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?

Legalization of marijuana will be the one issue that really tests just how much political influence social conservatives still hold.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
The idiocy, that making weed available could be the sole savior of the California economy is stupid. Nothing but the rantings of a weed first buffoon.
Click to expand...

Never smoked once in my life so I can hardly be called a "weed bafoon", but I do see this being a possible boom to their economy. IF it comes to pass it:

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.

Oh and if weed is truly a medicine, it is immoral for California to tax it. Unless the whole thing is a sham.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Yeah by creating a state of unmotivated buffoons
Click to expand...

Link to study?
 
marduc said:
There have been no false assumptions here. Please define "help rescue" if that is what you are alluding to.


pssst.. I think you are confusing me with TheNextEra, take a look our names are spelled differently :D
Click to expand...

You're right, I made a mistake in assuming you were TheNextEra. Sorry.

:2wave:
 
marduc said:
Its legality or illegality has absolutely no impact on whether or not they are getting high. The hippies and the millions and millions of NON HIPPIES will continue to get high legal or not.
Click to expand...

Well then, since according to you there would be no increase in consumption of this product, there's no economical reason to legalize it.
 
Grateful Heart said:
I won't address each and every one of your bullet points. I'll just tackle the first one. What leads you to the conclusion that legalizing any drug would reduce its availability to kids? In fact, this defies common sense. Alcohol and tobacco are readily available to kids.

No logic there whatsoever. Sorry.

:shock:
Click to expand...
Do you think dealers ask for ID before selling kids an ounce? If it was legal, it would be much harder to obtain.
 
Jerry said:
Well then, since according to you there would be no increase in consumption of this product, there's no economical reason to legalize it.
Click to expand...
Taxes create revenue. Tax it and rebuild our decrepit economy.
 
Jerry said:
Well then, since according to you there would be no increase in consumption of this product, there's no economical reason to legalize it.
Click to expand...


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:
EgoffTib said:
Do you think dealers ask for ID before selling kids an ounce? If it was legal, it would be much harder to obtain.
Click to expand...

I suppose the obvious is often the most difficult to see.

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?

:confused:
 
Grateful Heart said:
I suppose the obvious is often the most difficult to see.

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?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Will a basement speak easy ask for ID?
 
Grateful Heart said:
Let's suppose alcohol were made illegal. Would you think that would make alcohol more or less difficult for kids to obtain?
Click to expand...

So your whole arguemnt is on whether or not something is easier to obtain?

fine, let's pose another argument. Would you rather a kid obtain pot from a stranger willing to buy it for him or the kid killing a person to get it?

Let's see your answer on this one.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Will there be as much alcohol around?
Click to expand...

nahh, not at first until distribution networks and a solid underground gets established, even then no, it is too bulky and unwieldy in comparison to marijuana or other drugs. Sure there will be less, but it would be easier for someone underage to get it, the criminals who will be in it for a quick easy profit have no concern on who they would sell it to.

I think the problem here is that some do not realize how prevalent and available marijuana is, there are NO SUPPLY SIDE ISSUES at all.
 
EgoffTib said:
Taxes create revenue. Tax it and rebuild our decrepit economy.
Click to expand...

Our economy wasn't tanked through a lack of funding for needed spending, but of gorse excessive spending far, far beyond what was needed.

Pot tax wouldn't fix that.
 
marduc said:
I think the problem here is that some do not realize how prevalent and available marijuana is, there are NO SUPPLY SIDE ISSUES at all.
Click to expand...

This is correct and in fact the legalization of marijuana would ultimately cause the demise of the corner way dealer doing it.

After all do you see any numerous amount of dealers dealing in moonshine on the corners or buildings?

The way to kill the drug crime is to decriminalize the drugs and make them safer.

I've done pot a total of 4 times in my life. Each and every time I hated the smell, and hated the burn down my throat.

I'd rather drink beer to be honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom