• 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!

Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

Kanda, why would you defend these dealers of death yet take exception to someone who wants to deal death back to them?

How exactly am I defending them by wanting to eliminate their career by legalizing drugs?

As for dealing death to dealers of death...Are you calling for the murder of the executives of Phillip Morris too? Jack Daniels? How about McDonald's? Coca-Cola? :shock:

Captain America said:
According to you (and Ethreal,) by all appearances, you are against even the most sensible laws so why would my position on putting the guys away go against your beliefs?

No, YOU are against the most sensible laws. Namely, the total legalization of all drugs, albeit in restricted settings for the harder drugs. Which of the "most sensible laws" am I against, and what makes you think that they're oh-so-sensible when the war on drugs has been an abysmal failure?

Captain America said:
You can defend these meth hounds all you want. But I know them to be the lowest of low and they are a waste of oxygen IMO.

If they aren't hurting anyone, then it's none of your damn business whether or not they're a "waste of oxygen." And if they are hurting someone, then prosecute them for THOSE crimes.

Captain America said:
You guys defending them, as you do, makes wonder about you.

They say "birds of a feather......" But I could be wrong. ;)

Just sayin'...... :roll:

This is the typical irrational rhetoric from drug warriors that replaces actual THOUGHT. Perhaps you'd care to address the issue, instead of what you imagine my drug habits to be. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Safe to say that we are poles apart on our opinions.

You call my opinion irrational rhetoric and I call your's simply un-experienced, equally irrational and perhaps naive.

Stalemate.

But I agree that Jack Daniel's and Phillip Morris are also dealer's in death. If they fell off the face of the earth it wouldn't hurt my feelings either.

So we have to agree that we disagree. That's all we can do

With that settled, let's go smoke a fatty and have a Corona or two. :2wave:
 
I've had 3 brothers who ended up involved with hard drugs including meth and heroine. (including just recently my younger brother, who just got out of jail for stealing money from his own mother to buy meth) In all 3 cases, the cookers and dealers were not the problem, my brothers were/are their own problems. It's not like dealers are out there forcing narcotics down people's throats against their will. Dealers are not the problem. It's a waste of time to focus on dealers. The focus should be on convincing people to decide not to buy and use what they're selling to begin with.
 
That would be fine if the addict was in control. The meth takes control. The addict is a casualty. It's gotta go. Unfortunantly, to get to the queen bee, we gotta take out the whole nest.

Any and everything that has to do with meth, from the bottom to the top, has to be quarantined or extinguished. I hate it that much.

I can understand, however, that someone who walks in a different pair of shoes might differ.

But the shoes I'm standing in, and have stood in, tells me that sympathy and compassion and progressive possibilities be damned. No quarter. Zero tolerance.

Like Barney said. "Nip it. Nip it in the bud."
 
That would be fine if the addict was in control. The meth takes control. The addict is a casualty. It's gotta go. Unfortunantly, to get to the queen bee, we gotta take out the whole nest.

Any and everything that has to do with meth, from the bottom to the top, has to be quarantined or extinguished. I hate it that much.

So let me get this straight: Meth is so horrible because it takes control of people and makes casualties out of addicts...therefore we should kill the addicts, to prevent them from becoming victims of meth. :doh

Before they're executed, can they file a civil suit against themselves too? Can the victim (the meth user) sue the culprit (himself)? If so, how much should he be awarded? :lol:

Captain America said:
I can understand, however, that someone who walks in a different pair of shoes might differ.

But the shoes I'm standing in, and have stood in, tells me that sympathy and compassion and progressive possibilities be damned. No quarter. Zero tolerance.

"Zero tolerance" is just a euphemism for "stupidly rigid policies that accomplish nothing."

Captain America said:
Like Barney said. "Nip it. Nip it in the bud."

Can you explain to us again how executing meth users is "nipping it in the bud"?
 
Last edited:
Kanda, why would you defend these dealers of death yet take exception to someone who wants to deal death back to them?

You do realize that when people want to get high, they will right? hence the people that sniff spray paint, sniff computer air dusting cans, etc.

People will find more and dangerous ways to high if they REALLY want to.

I say let's make drugs as legal and safe as possible and to the rest that do other things, let Murphy's law take it's effect.

You can't save everyone from drug effects no matter how hard you try.
 
Last edited:
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/miron/files/budget_2008.pdf

The report estimates that legalizing drugs would save roughly $44.1 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $30.3 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $13.8 billion would accrue to the federal government. Approximately $12.9 billion of the savings would results from legalization of marijuana, $19.3 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $11.6 from legalization of other drugs.

The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $32.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs are taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $6.7 of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana, $22.5 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $3.5 from legalization of other drugs.

This doesn't have much to do with what I posted, but making up fantasy projections on tax revenues is a game anybody can play, since it's all imaginary and not factual. Weed is easy to grow, and anybody can buy customized seeds to row stuff better than any commercial provider will ever provide at a reasonable price, and that means the tax revenues from weed will not amount to much; it's just too cheap to grow on your own.
 
How did Al Capone and Joe Kennedy get rich? Yes, that's right, the government created a black market and the criminals got rich.

Prohibition was a mixed bag; it made people like Al Capone rich because the government in Illinois and other midwestern and northeastern states was corrupt, no because of merely making alcohol illegal. Prohibition was already in effect in many states long before the Volstead Act, and many states, and large areas in others, remained dry after it was repealed; it was only repealed because booze taxes were touted as a revenue generator for the Federal government during a Depression. Alcohol consumption didn't reach the pre-war levels again until the late 1940's, and the revenues expected never amounted to much.

Legalizing crank and heroin will only make it easier for kids to get a hold of it and create more addicts, not fewer; the U.S. needs to get rid of its political corruption, not run around legalizing every stupid thing a bunch of spoiled, stupid college kids want to legalize. Legailizing pot is no big deal, it's certainly better than alcohol, if someone is looking for a buzz, but it not even remotely in the same category as crank and heroin.
 
Last edited:
Weed is easy to grow, and anybody can buy customized seeds to row stuff better than any commercial provider will ever provide at a reasonable price, and that means the tax revenues from weed will not amount to much; it's just too cheap to grow on your own.
If you think that would be the case, then please explain why 99% of Americans would rather buy beer at the store instead of brewing their own beer to avoid the taxes. And please explain why hardly anyone grows their own tobacco to avoid the taxes. I mean, if what you say is true, then we should see a much bigger problem now with legal drugs. But your scenario doesn't play out in reality. Why do you think that is?

Prohibition was a mixed bag; it made people like Al Capone rich because the government in Illinois and other midwestern and northeastern states was corrupt, no because of merely making alcohol illegal. Prohibition was already in effect in many states long before the Volstead Act, and many states, and large areas in others, remained dry after it was repealed; it was only repealed because booze taxes were touted as a revenue generator for the Federal government during a Depression. Alcohol consumption didn't reach the pre-war levels again until the late 1940's, and the revenues expected never amounted to much.
You've made a lot of historical claims here about prohibition that I don't believe are accurate. Where are you getting this information from?

Legalizing crank and heroin will only make it easier for kids to get a hold of it and create more addicts, not fewer;
Actually it would make it harder for kids to get drugs, not easier. Do you know that high school kids consistently say it's easier to get weed than beer? Do you know why that is? It's because thugs on the street aren't asking kids for their IDs before selling to them. Think about it.
 
If you think that would be the case, then please explain why 99% of Americans would rather buy beer at the store instead of brewing their own beer to avoid the taxes. And please explain why hardly anyone grows their own tobacco to avoid the taxes. I mean, if what you say is true, then we should see a much bigger problem now with legal drugs. But your scenario doesn't play out in reality. Why do you think that is?


You've made a lot of historical claims here about prohibition that I don't believe are accurate. Where are you getting this information from?


Actually it would make it harder for kids to get drugs, not easier. Do you know that high school kids consistently say it's easier to get weed than beer? Do you know why that is? It's because thugs on the street aren't asking kids for their IDs before selling to them. Think about it.

It is based on opportunity costs and comparative advantages. Your average smoker will have a higher opportunity cost with growing cannabis, along with less of an advantage compared to an experienced grower. The best bet is to obtain income in your most efficient fashion, to pay the grower to get your cannabis. You would probably spend less time and have more net wealth in the end (unless you spend all your money).
 
You do realize that when people want to get high, they will right? hence the people that sniff spray paint, sniff computer air dusting cans, etc.

People will find more and dangerous ways to high if they REALLY want to.

I say let's make drugs as legal and safe as possible and to the rest that do other things, let Murphy's law take it's effect.

You can't save everyone from drug effects no matter how hard you try.

Oh, I get it now. GREAT PLAN!

Legalize meth, heroin, and crack. Make it so cheap that the jobless junkies won't have to steal anymore. Hell, let's just give it to them for free. And just like the monkey who was given all the cocaine he wanted, and died, in 6 to 9 months, maybe a year, they will all be dead.

Maybe I oughta take a second look at this. You guys might be on to something. Hmmmmm.....

Imagine how easy it would have been on Saddam if the Kurds WANTED the poison gas. :roll:
 
Thirty years ago, you would have laughed if someone told you one day two gay guys could get married, a guy could do what OJ did and get away with it, and marijuana would be legal.

Legalizing pot opens a Pandora's box.

One day we'll be debating legalizing polygamy and marrying farm animals. And we'll be debating legalizing recreational narcotic use altogether.
Impressive slippery slope argument. I'm sure you also think that legalizing gay marriage will lead to people marrying dogs and inanimate objects? :mrgreen:
 
Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

I misread the thread title as "Legal pot would rake in $1.48."

Heh. :2razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom