I don't think it would cost more, being a "black market" drug probably causes it to be more expensive. Twice the punishment sounds a little harsh, but some is appropriate.
we are each entitled to our own opinion. I do think it would cost more.
The plus is it would probably be filtered better, so it would be slightly less of a health risk. I also think it should be heavily taxed, if ever legalized.
Right now there are healthy alternatives to smoking like digestion and vaporizers
It's a tough issue. And the other main problem is... why can't you legalize (you name it) other drug if you do so for pot?
I will be honest.... I think it may be best to just keep it the way it is. The truth is, if you want it and act responsibly, you can get it, use it and will not get in trouble. So, in a way, the law is OK as is.
I don't think there's a "slippery slope" that leads to other hardcore drugs being legalized as a result of pot. As you know there's a ton of other drugs that are legal at the moment. I think the law as is right now actually leads to people using harder drugs because sometimes it's easier to get harder drugs. It's easier to get illegitimate prescription drugs for some people. That's way worse.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
we are each entitled to our own opinion. I do think it would cost more.
that's fine. Supply and demand. I'm just saying High demand with low supply, as is the case right now, probably leads to higher prices than if there were a higher supply as a result of legalization.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
The taxes the government would get by legalizing marijuana would certainly help with our economic problems right now. The country would also save a lot of money by reducing spending in this farce called the "war on drugs" and we wouldn't have the expenses stemming from incarcerating people for using or selling weed. If marijuana was legal it would be harder for minors to buy as there would surely be a minimum age set for purchasing like there is for alcohol and tobacco.
I'm surprised no one here who opposes legalizing marijuana has used the gateway drug argument yet, but I'll give you my opinion on that anyway. It is not just a gateway to using harder drugs, it is also a gateway for more dealers to be able to sell other types of drugs. I believe legalizing it would make it more difficult for people to get some of the harder drugs because many dealers base their business on selling weed and would occasionally have other stuff available. Take away their main money maker, and they no longer have the means to sell other, more harmful drugs.
I'm not saying it would stop the distribution of all harder drugs. I know there are some dealers that mainly sell shit like crack or heroin (things that should certainly remain illegal), but it would still hurt some drug dealers' business.
why not? you guys already use alcohol on that very same "slippery slope."
You're assuming alcohol and pot use can't be exlcusive, that they must be mutual? Or are you saying the argument for legalization, because of alochol being legal, is a slippery slope? What ARE you trying to say? It's pretty simple, if alcohol and other drugs are legal, why not pot? Especially when it's gonna generate revenue like the alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drug industries. I'm saying there is no slippery slope, it's a fallacy.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
The taxes the government would get by legalizing marijuana would certainly help with our economic problems right now. The country would also save a lot of money by reducing spending in this farce called the "war on drugs" and we wouldn't have the expenses stemming from incarcerating people for using or selling weed. If marijuana was legal it would be harder for minors to buy as there would surely be a minimum age set for purchasing like there is for alcohol and tobacco.
I'm surprised no one here who opposes legalizing marijuana has used the gateway drug argument yet, but I'll give you my opinion on that anyway. It is not just a gateway to using harder drugs, it is also a gateway for more dealers to be able to sell other types of drugs. I believe legalizing it would make it more difficult for people to get some of the harder drugs because many dealers base their business on selling weed and would occasionally have other stuff available. Take away their main money maker, and they no longer have the means to sell other, more harmful drugs.
I'm not saying it would stop the distribution of all harder drugs. I know there are some dealers that mainly sell shit like crack or heroin (things that should certainly remain illegal), but it would still hurt some drug dealers' business.
Wow, finally someone who gets it. Thank you.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
you are smoking way too much of it if you think that's a proper comparison...
who's comparing...?
I was simply following the logic of this statement: To protect the rest of society from the consequences of the actions of a few people.
In my area, a large group of drivers are horrible...which is a danger to society, therefore, in order to protect the rest of society, I propose we ban cars to keep the rest of society protected...
In my area, a large group of drivers are horrible...which is a danger to society, therefore, in order to protect the rest of society, I propose we ban cars to keep the rest of society protected...
How about we just ban bad drivers... oh, wait. We already do that.
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
I was simply following the logic of this statement: To protect the rest of society from the consequences of the actions of a few people.
In my area, a large group of drivers are horrible...which is a danger to society, therefore, in order to protect the rest of society, I propose we ban cars to keep the rest of society protected...
That was a comparison. I don't understand why you would try to deny it.
I happen to agree to some extent, only not to ban cars, but to raise the driving age. I would like to see a driving age of 22.
I was simply following the logic of this statement: To protect the rest of society from the consequences of the actions of a few people.
In my area, a large group of drivers are horrible...which is a danger to society, therefore, in order to protect the rest of society, I propose we ban cars to keep the rest of society protected...
Agreed. There's no way to "protect" society from every single thing, and that's not what the government does anyway.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
Actually, it is. In fact, there are whole federal agencies dedicated to it. EPA, USDA and FDA just to name a few.
Actually it isn't. I'll explain why. Look at the agencies you just listed. They've all failed to protect us at one point or another. FDA, USDA, EPA? Can you say mad cow disease, prescription drugs that went bad that were approved by those agencies like Vioxx, Global warming? All you have to do is google each agency with the word failure and read for yourself. Government is not going to protect every single thing sorry.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
That was a comparison. I don't understand why you would try to deny it.
I happen to agree to some extent, only not to ban cars, but to raise the driving age. I would like to see a driving age of 22.
obtuse, huh...?
Let's try some others....
guns...guns happen to kill people who live in society...since we want to keep society safe, we should make guns illegal....
booze...members of society sometimes drink too much and end up dying, so, to keep society safe, we should ban booze....
ladders...sadly, some members of our society have fallen off a ladder and were hurt, sometimes, killed....to keep or society safe, we should outlaw ladders....
Of course there are failures and corruption in every agency. But at the core of the matter, public safety is still their primary responsibility.
That's supposed to be the primary responsibility of the government, but that's not how it works. In this country it's more about $$$$$$, and that leads to public safety being put on the back burner.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
I can say bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Variant-Creutzfeld Jakob Disease
Trust me, I have way more experience with this one than you do
No, I'm not trusting you. If you're so much more experienced then why are you implying the government is gonna protect society from the consequences blah blah blah when it's pretty well documented that they haven't many times? That's all I'm saying.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
guns...guns happen to kill people who live in society...since we want to keep society safe, we should make guns illegal....
booze...members of society sometimes drink too much and end up dying, so, to keep society safe, we should ban booze....
ladders...sadly, some members of our society have fallen off a ladder and were hurt, sometimes, killed....to keep or society safe, we should outlaw ladders....
I thought this was about legalizing marijuana, which I agree with. I can't tell now if you are for or against it. I guess you're against it, since you now want to outlaw guns, booze & ladders. ???
All I did was point out what a ridiculous comparison you made (cars vs. marijuana) and mention that if you thought that was a decent comparison maybe you are smoking too much.
You want to turn it into a fight, when all along, I've said, "legalize it!"
No, I'm not trusting you. If you're so much more experienced then why are you implying the government is gonna protect society from the consequences blah blah blah when it's pretty well documented that they haven't many times? That's all I'm saying.
How many Americans have died from vCJD (the human form of mad cow disease to the lay population)? There have been a grand total of either 1 or 2 (can't remember for sure) cases of BSE in livestock in the U.S. And did you know that both of those cows were traced back to Canada? And did you also know that both those cases were traced back to Canadian ranchers using illegal feed?
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
You want to turn it into a fight, when all along, I've said, "legalize it!"
I don't understand where you're going with this.
There's no fight, just discussion. He was replying to someone who implied government protects society from consequences of the actions of others, (which isn't entirely true) so he used the analogy of banning cars, which is true to an extent. Cars kill, if it's government's job to "protect" why are there cars? That's the point government can't protect you and won't protect you against every singe thing, even if there are reckless driving laws.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
There's no fight, just discussion. He was replying to someone who implied government protects society from consequences of the actions of others, (which isn't entirely true) so he used the analogy of banning cars, which is true to an extent. Cars kill, if it's government's job to "protect" why are there cars. That's the point government can't protect you against every singe thing, even if there are reckless driving laws.
Comments
we are each entitled to our own opinion. I do think it would cost more.
Right now there are healthy alternatives to smoking like digestion and vaporizers
I don't think there's a "slippery slope" that leads to other hardcore drugs being legalized as a result of pot. As you know there's a ton of other drugs that are legal at the moment. I think the law as is right now actually leads to people using harder drugs because sometimes it's easier to get harder drugs. It's easier to get illegitimate prescription drugs for some people. That's way worse.
you are smoking way too much of it if you think that's a proper comparison...
why not? you guys already use alcohol on that very same "slippery slope."
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
that's fine. Supply and demand. I'm just saying High demand with low supply, as is the case right now, probably leads to higher prices than if there were a higher supply as a result of legalization.
I'm surprised no one here who opposes legalizing marijuana has used the gateway drug argument yet, but I'll give you my opinion on that anyway. It is not just a gateway to using harder drugs, it is also a gateway for more dealers to be able to sell other types of drugs. I believe legalizing it would make it more difficult for people to get some of the harder drugs because many dealers base their business on selling weed and would occasionally have other stuff available. Take away their main money maker, and they no longer have the means to sell other, more harmful drugs.
I'm not saying it would stop the distribution of all harder drugs. I know there are some dealers that mainly sell shit like crack or heroin (things that should certainly remain illegal), but it would still hurt some drug dealers' business.
You're assuming alcohol and pot use can't be exlcusive, that they must be mutual? Or are you saying the argument for legalization, because of alochol being legal, is a slippery slope? What ARE you trying to say? It's pretty simple, if alcohol and other drugs are legal, why not pot? Especially when it's gonna generate revenue like the alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drug industries. I'm saying there is no slippery slope, it's a fallacy.
Wow, finally someone who gets it. Thank you.
who's comparing...?
I was simply following the logic of this statement: To protect the rest of society from the consequences of the actions of a few people.
In my area, a large group of drivers are horrible...which is a danger to society, therefore, in order to protect the rest of society, I propose we ban cars to keep the rest of society protected...
How about we just ban bad drivers... oh, wait. We already do that.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
That was a comparison. I don't understand why you would try to deny it.
I happen to agree to some extent, only not to ban cars, but to raise the driving age. I would like to see a driving age of 22.
Agreed. There's no way to "protect" society from every single thing, and that's not what the government does anyway.
Actually, it is. In fact, there are whole federal agencies dedicated to it. EPA, USDA and FDA just to name a few.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
Actually it isn't. I'll explain why. Look at the agencies you just listed. They've all failed to protect us at one point or another. FDA, USDA, EPA? Can you say mad cow disease, prescription drugs that went bad that were approved by those agencies like Vioxx, Global warming? All you have to do is google each agency with the word failure and read for yourself. Government is not going to protect every single thing sorry.
Of course there are failures and corruption in every agency. But at the core of the matter, public safety is still their primary responsibility.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
obtuse, huh...?
Let's try some others....
guns...guns happen to kill people who live in society...since we want to keep society safe, we should make guns illegal....
booze...members of society sometimes drink too much and end up dying, so, to keep society safe, we should ban booze....
ladders...sadly, some members of our society have fallen off a ladder and were hurt, sometimes, killed....to keep or society safe, we should outlaw ladders....
do we...?
where....?
I can say bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Variant-Creutzfeld Jakob Disease
Trust me, I have way more experience with this one than you do
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
we've got all kinds of reckless driving laws on the book don't we?
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
That's supposed to be the primary responsibility of the government, but that's not how it works. In this country it's more about $$$$$$, and that leads to public safety being put on the back burner.
No, I'm not trusting you. If you're so much more experienced then why are you implying the government is gonna protect society from the consequences blah blah blah when it's pretty well documented that they haven't many times? That's all I'm saying.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepip08/pip082.htm
Deadline to register is Oct 15th, this Wednesday.
yet cars are still out there killing people...by your logic, we should ban cars...
look, it's your logic, not mine, I'm just along for the ride...
I thought this was about legalizing marijuana, which I agree with. I can't tell now if you are for or against it. I guess you're against it, since you now want to outlaw guns, booze & ladders. ???
All I did was point out what a ridiculous comparison you made (cars vs. marijuana) and mention that if you thought that was a decent comparison maybe you are smoking too much.
You want to turn it into a fight, when all along, I've said, "legalize it!"
I don't understand where you're going with this.
How many Americans have died from vCJD (the human form of mad cow disease to the lay population)? There have been a grand total of either 1 or 2 (can't remember for sure) cases of BSE in livestock in the U.S. And did you know that both of those cows were traced back to Canada? And did you also know that both those cases were traced back to Canadian ranchers using illegal feed?
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
naděje umírá poslední
There's no fight, just discussion. He was replying to someone who implied government protects society from consequences of the actions of others, (which isn't entirely true) so he used the analogy of banning cars, which is true to an extent. Cars kill, if it's government's job to "protect" why are there cars? That's the point government can't protect you and won't protect you against every singe thing, even if there are reckless driving laws.
exactly, thank you....:)
why not tax it?
We pay tax on alcohol and cigarettes. Why not marijuana?