Legalizing weed.....My question...

OutOfBreath

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

I am going to take a guess here and say 99% of the people who post here, on the moving train, do not trust our government as far as they can throw them...Right???

I am going to say I have read 1,543,934 posts here on the moving train, about how the government steals our tax money and throws it away.....Right???

But these same people here, who all have the same opinion, about are crooked, inept, thieving, no good rotten government offficials......

Have NO PROBLEM with letting these same people control, distribute and tax their dope????

It's all about which parts of government one trusts and not, and in what ways. I'll grant you the libertarian percentage is probably greater on here than elsewhere. But do remember government is not one monolithic entity, nor is it god. Just because tax dollars may be wasted here and there, does not exclude that legalized (and hence regulated) weed will be a net gain to society.

Besides, taxing something is a far cry from controlling. The government does not control your beer, even if you pay some taxes on it...

Peace
Dan

eyedclaar

OutOfBreath wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

I am going to take a guess here and say 99% of the people who post here, on the moving train, do not trust our government as far as they can throw them...Right???

I am going to say I have read 1,543,934 posts here on the moving train, about how the government steals our tax money and throws it away.....Right???

But these same people here, who all have the same opinion, about are crooked, inept, thieving, no good rotten government offficials......

Have NO PROBLEM with letting these same people control, distribute and tax their dope????

It's all about which parts of government one trusts and not, and in what ways. I'll grant you the libertarian percentage is probably greater on here than elsewhere. But do remember government is not one monolithic entity, nor is it god. Just because tax dollars may be wasted here and there, does not exclude that legalized (and hence regulated) weed will be a net gain to society.

Besides, taxing something is a far cry from controlling. The government does not control your beer, even if you pay some taxes on it...

Peace
Dan

And frankly, I’d rather see it legalized and in the hands of an inept government than have to worry about having my whole life turned upside down, future fucked, and possibly sent to prison for something so ridiculous. There are a ton of harmless people already in cells that would probably be happy to see it legalized as well. Maybe we could let them out and actually lock up those that deserve it.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

So lets say the state of Illinois legalizes dope....The state of Illinois decides THEY will harvest their own crops, and distribute marijuana the same wasy cigarettes are distributed.

A pack of cigarettes is costing about $10 these days here...right?

Lets say the State decides a pack of good sensi bud, rolled into 20 cigarettes, will cost $100.00 a pack. $5 a joint sounds about right? And on top of that $100.00 they are going to charge $10 state tax and another $20 going to the Fed.

Now your pack of dope is going to cost you $130.00....Is everyone ok with that?

keeponrockin

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

So lets say the state of Illinois legalizes dope....The state of Illinois decides THEY will harvest their own crops, and distribute marijuana the same wasy cigarettes are distributed.

A pack of cigarettes is costing about $10 these days here...right?

Lets say the State decides a pack of good sensi bud, rolled into 20 cigarettes, will cost $100.00 a pack. $5 a joint sounds about right? And on top of that $100.00 they are going to charge $10 state tax and another $20 going to the Fed.

Now your pack of dope is going to cost you $130.00....Is everyone ok with that?

But why would pot be more expensive to grow than tobacco?

SPEEDY MCCREADY

keeponrockin wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

So lets say the state of Illinois legalizes dope....The state of Illinois decides THEY will harvest their own crops, and distribute marijuana the same wasy cigarettes are distributed.

A pack of cigarettes is costing about $10 these days here...right?

Lets say the State decides a pack of good sensi bud, rolled into 20 cigarettes, will cost $100.00 a pack. $5 a joint sounds about right? And on top of that $100.00 they are going to charge $10 state tax and another $20 going to the Fed.

Now your pack of dope is going to cost you $130.00....Is everyone ok with that?

But why would pot be more expensive to grow than tobacco?

Do you think pot would go for the same amount as tobacco?

keeponrockin

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

So lets say the state of Illinois legalizes dope....The state of Illinois decides THEY will harvest their own crops, and distribute marijuana the same wasy cigarettes are distributed.

A pack of cigarettes is costing about $10 these days here...right?

Lets say the State decides a pack of good sensi bud, rolled into 20 cigarettes, will cost $100.00 a pack. $5 a joint sounds about right? And on top of that $100.00 they are going to charge $10 state tax and another $20 going to the Fed.

Now your pack of dope is going to cost you $130.00....Is everyone ok with that?

But why would pot be more expensive to grow than tobacco?

Do you think pot would go for the same amount as tobacco?

I think it'd be more, but not THAT much more.

Drowned Out

It seems so many people have this distorted perspective regarding the number of impaired drivers on the road, and just how impaired it makes you. The people that get right fucked are the ones that rarely smoke. If someone is really inexperienced, and gets really f’d up from it…do you think they’re likely to drive high unless they have a total disregard for public safety? …the people that don’t get that fucked up from it, and have a lot of experience, either already have a position/habit regarding driving high….why would that position/habit change with legalization, if impaired driving laws didn’t change? Same goes for working impaired….

Combine that with the fact that legalization tends to result in long term DECREASES in the number of users, and you are not likely to see more people driving or working impaired, in fact the numbers may go down.

The second part to the driving argument, and I’ve stated this here a number of times, is that impairment levels and reaction times are generally better than someone who blows a .08% BAC…so unless you support zero tolerance for drinking and driving, this argument is moot. As stated, there is no practical test for MJ use…. but do we want one that only tells you how recently someone smoked, if their impairment level is within the already established legal tolerance? Wouldn’t this still lead to unjust prosecutions? Why not use roadside motor-skill testing instead? Or better yet, develop a test that is based soley on impairment, regardless of the drug? You can’t tell me we don’t have the technology available to figure this out if we wanted to.
But really…..there is no test for pain or anxiety pills, or other over the counter psychotropic’s….nor tests for awareness/sleepiness. So why are so many people worried about pot???? Because of the propaganda campaign against it, plain and simple. And people call smokers paranoid :roll:

Now, the taxation issue….If a concession to legalization is to allow taxation of commercially grown pot, I would accept that, based on eyed’s argument – we need to stop destroying lives over this asap….BUT…I would only be willing to make that concession if growing was either completely deregulated, or very loosely regulated in a way that would not allow search/seizure of private property. With strict regulation, the government would likely try to bring the hammer down on private growers in order to force people to ‘voluntarily’ pay their ‘luxury’ tax…..which means even stiffer penalties than we have currently, for anything but possession. if there are still huge penalties for home-growing, quantity-based charges, distribution-based charges, etc., in an effort to protect their tax base, then we’d still be fighting a war against a plant.

VINNY GOOMBA

Drowned Out wrote:

It seems so many people have this distorted perspective regarding the number of impaired drivers on the road, and just how impaired it makes you. The people that get right fucked are the ones that rarely smoke. If someone is really inexperienced, and gets really f’d up from it…do you think they’re likely to drive high unless they have a total disregard for public safety? …the people that don’t get that fucked up from it, and have a lot of experience, either already have a position/habit regarding driving high….why would that position/habit change with legalization, if impaired driving laws didn’t change? Same goes for working impaired….

Combine that with the fact that legalization tends to result in long term DECREAESES in the number of users, and you are not likely to see more people driving or working impaired, in fact the numbers may go down.

The second part to the driving argument, and I’ve stated this here a number of times, is that impairment levels and reaction times are generally better than someone who blows a .08% BAC…so unless you support zero tolerance for drinking and driving, this argument is moot. As stated, there is no practical test for MJ use…. but do we want one that only tells you how recently someone smoked, if their impairment level is within the already established legal tolerance? Wouldn’t this still lead to unjust prosecutions? Why not use roadside motor-skill testing instead? Or better yet, develop a test that is based soley on impairment, regardless of the drug? You can’t tell me we don’t have the technology available to figure this out if we wanted to.
But really…..there is no test for pain or anxiety pills, or other over the counter psychotropic’s….nor tests for awareness/sleepiness. So why are so many people worried about pot???? Because of the propaganda campaign against it, plain and simple. And people call smokers paranoid :roll:

Now, the taxation issue….If a concession to legalization is to allow taxation of commercially grown pot, I would accept that, based on eyed’s argument – we need to stop destroying lives over this asap….BUT…I would only be willing to make that concession if growing was either completely deregulated, or very loosely regulated in a way that would not allow search/seizure of private property. With strict regulation, the government would likely try to bring the hammer down on private growers in order to force people to ‘voluntarily’ pay their ‘luxury’ tax…..which means even stiffer penalties than we have currently, for anything but possession. if there are still huge penalties for home-growing, quantity-based charges, distribution-based charges, etc., in an effort to protect their tax base, then we’d still be fighting a war against a plant.

BEST POST EVER.

Drowned Out

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

BEST POST EVER.

Thanks bud, you've made a lot of good points too ...but it's pretty much all common sense...I think a lot of people don't even realize how influenced they've been by an egg in a frying pan on tv....

Flagg

Double post.

Flagg

One thing I would be worried about, if it became legal and corporations started planing pot farms, is how long would it be before they started adding nicotene or 100 other chemicals to it like they do to tobacco? Not long I bet.

Drowned Out

One more point about testing:
The effects are often contrary to their intent.
In the Oilsands of northern Alberta, where people live in ‘camps’ – dorm-style housing while working, pre-access testing is the norm, and many of the camps are ‘dry’ (no alcohol). So the least detectable way to get fucked up is the most favoured...
People jump between companies often, and need to be re-tested with the new company, or after an extended leave from site….
Because MJ stays in your system for weeks, and coke is out of your system within a day or so…there are a TON of people who smoke crack instead of weed.
Who would you rather work with? The guy sketchin on crack all night, or the guy who passed out after a J and bag of chips?

pandora

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

pandora wrote:

Along with the legalization there will be an increase in driving under the influence of marijuana and some may do so dangerously impaired so there will be new fines collected for that, additional legal funds coming in, treatment programs making money etc..

Wait a second...

Did you just say legalize it....

So we can have more addicts....
Which would be good for the cops and lawyers when we bust these addicts driving under the influence????

Did you just say legalize it...

So we can have more addicts...
And then there is money to be made when we rehabilitate those addicts?????

Well we are talking about legalizing here and of course that is one reason why it hasn't been yet, because people will abuse it and drive under the influence. Everyone has thought of that I'm sure.

We were talking $$ for the government tax etc I thought

my point was more money into the system for the government from this aspect also not just taxes... its the etc part of my answer.
Not saying good saying reality.

catefrances

Flagg wrote:

One thing I would be worried about, if it became legal and corporations started planing pot farms, is how long would it be before they started adding nicotene or 100 other chemicals to it like they do to tobacco? Not long I bet.

corporate weed would be illegal. if you want to smoke it, you must grow it or buy it from a trusted 'distributor' ie your mate. or his mate.