Video: Time to legalize marijuana?

posted at 10:15 am on April 19, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Nick Gillespie at Reason TV gives three reasons for the US to legalize and regulate marijuana on the same basis as alcohol. Think of this as a kitchen-sink presentation, as Nick gives a smorgasbord of motivations. Think the government needs more revenue? Taxes could net as much as $6 billion a year, and ending prohibition will save another $8 billion. He also uses a traditional libertarian argument, as well as the pessimistic fatalist argument:

1. The tax revenue and law enforcement savings. A 2005 cost-benefit analysis done by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron found that legalizing marijuana and taxing it similar to alcohol would generate over $6 billion in new revenue and save nearly $8 billion in direct law enforcement costs. Pot is already the biggest cash crop in many states; bringing it into the open market would pump all sorts of energy into the economy.

2. It’s going to happen anyway, so why delay the inevitable? Increasing numbers of Americans realize that pot prohibition is an ineffective and costly policy. A 2009 poll by Zogby found that 52 percent of Americans agreed that marijuana should be taxed and regulated like booze. A Field Poll last year of California residents, who will vote on a legalization ballot initiative in the fall, found that 56 percent wanted legalization. Other polls show historically high percentages favoring legalization. In a world of busted budgets, it’s crystal clear that spending time and energy policing marijuana is not worth it.

3. Keep Your Laws Off Our Bodies. Never mind that by virtually every measure, pot is safer and less than disruptive than booze. Pot prohibition in the 1930s was the result of hysteria, not serious threats to society. We own our bodies and should be free to eat, drink, and smoke what we want. And to take responsibility for our actions, whether we’re straight or we’re stoned.

In my mind, the only fully legitimate argument among the three is the last. I don’t think the federal government needs more revenue, and I’m a little surprised to hear a libertarian offer that as a feature rather than a bug.  The reduction in law-enforcement cost is a good argument, but that’s more of a side effect from the third argument rather than the first.  After all, additional taxes and regulation will bring its own government costs.  Inevitability in this case is rather weak; when it’s legalized, it will be legalized, but that doesn’t necessarily make it inevitable.  If it happens, we can then set those effective and efficient controls.

I agree, though, that marijuana intake is a personal decision in the same sense as alcohol.  The two don’t differ much in terms of danger to the user or those around the user, and alcohol is more toxic.  While we’re marching in the streets to demand an end to nanny-state policies, we should at least reconsider this 72-year-old nanny-state anachronism.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

And everyone worrying about the logistics of quality control, etc has obviously never lived/visited the Netherlands.

search4truth on April 19, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Never been there ….. but I hear you can get a beer at the movies, in a real glass too. They must have good chit over there because they also drown their french fries in mayonaise.

Jerome Horwitz on April 19, 2010 at 11:33 AM

I say decriminalize it, not regulate it.
Diane on April 19, 2010 at 11:14 AM

You know I love you but I have to disagree. If you make it legal you have two choices caveat emptor, which will never be allowed to happen. It would be like buying your baby formula from China, it might be safe, it might be powdered chalk and limestone. The media will have a field day with that “My little Johnny smoked Ernesto Special and now he is crippled because there is no regulation on the THC, and Ernesto threw in Azalea leaves.” Or you can regulate it from the start (one of the few Federal Govt jobs that should be done is weights, measures and safety), which leads to expansion of all those agencies I listed.
Would you walk into a 7-11 and drink a pre-opened soda trusting that no one put anything harmful in it or do you want it sealed to prevent tampering?

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 11:33 AM

…while a drunk my crash his car due to slow reflexes, a high person may become convinced that he could walk faster than the car is going and step out to prove it.

Kafir on April 19, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Not a person high on pot. PCP, maybe..(never tried it). Pot wouldn’t result in that kind of scenario. I can’t imagine doing that on LSD either, although my acid trips were somewhat low-altitude.

Dork B. on April 19, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Have you seen what’s gone on South of the border recently? And the violence that has been spreading to border states? I would say it is a rather important issue.

nazo311 on April 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Um, i live in Texas. Controlling the border is important, legalizing pot isn’t.

clearbluesky on April 19, 2010 at 11:34 AM

There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment- consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana’s widespread use in society.

*Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. “Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box”. New York. (1995):36.

*Swan, Neil. “A Look at Marijuana’s Harmful Effects.” NIDA Notes. 9.2 (1994): 14.

*Moskowitz, Herbert and Robert Petersen. Marijuana and Driving: A Review. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1982. 7.

*Mann, Peggy. Marijuana Alert. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985. 265.

mmnowakjr85 on April 19, 2010 at 11:34 AM

i predict a ratings bonanza for spongebob squarepants.

weewilly on April 19, 2010 at 11:35 AM

They could take all the revenue they earn from taxing pot and use it to build more drug rehab centers….they’re going to need them.

FlickeringFlame on April 19, 2010 at 11:35 AM

What is called moral legislation must inevitably increase
the alleged evil. The only way to prevent prostitution
altogether would be to imprison one half of the human race;
aside from this, the law can take a share of the prostitute’s
earnings, with a fine, and thus induce her to earn more and
to pay for “protection.” The drug traffic is made profitable
by prohibition, and thus increased. The acts forbidden are
those by which persons injure only themselvesj hence the
law can only injure them further. —The God of the Machine by Isabel Paterson, 1943.

Government cannot stop drug usage unless it is prepared to execute every drug pusher and user, then which is the more harm? The Drug war will not be won. It is causing way too much money. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should have no authority to tax or prohibit drug use It is a liberty issue. If people want to destroy themselves that is their right. In any case it is a States Rights Issue and States must have the power to regulate in the area. Federal Government needs to remove all drug laws from books and let States have the issue. ATF and DEA should both be eliminated, and federal prisons emptied of non-violent drug offenders. Think of the savings. We cannot afford the war on drugs. In countries who have legalized drug see a drop in usage. It becomes a topic people can freely seek help and talk about. No one dies from Cannabis but many die of alcoholism. The reason Cannabis is gate way drug is because teens see hypocrisy in the law and figure the government is lying about all drugs being bad for you. And before any one calls me a druggie, I do no illegal drugs or alcohol. I’m a vegetarian also but not animal rights nut. LETS GET BACK TO CONSTITUTION.

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 11:39 AM

I’m gonna toke a fatty regardless. No, obviously I’m for reducing the size of govt. rather than expanding it, but all that need be done is to incorporate pot into existing federal agencies, such as those you mentioned.
JetBoy on April 19, 2010 at 11:21 AM
Dude you so do not know Govt, any chance to expand and it will. So pot is now legal, you will have to hire more BATF agents to check that only tax paying people are growing it, and there will have to be lab time and space to make sure that the product is good and meets what ever federal guidelines there are regulation THC level per ounce. And then you will need to have tax stamps, and people in charge of them, and you will have to have state and local people checking those stamps to make sure every is getting their percent of tax revenue, and the IRS will have to expand to deal with the new revenue stream, and the Farm bureau will need more people to hand the pot plots (ie who can and can not grow pot like tobacco), and do not think you can just tell these people “do more work”, this new tax revenue must be spent which means a bigger Federal Govt.
I will not bother will all the time congress can waste arguing over THC levels and packaging and anything else rather than cutting spending. Pot legalization would be a gift from heaven for them they can divert attention away from their shenanigans with lots of televised debate.
But hey you will be able to smoke your fatty legally.

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Our reaction to pot vs. what it actually does is kind of silly disproportionate.

Weed is about as tame as psychoactive drugs get.

TheUnrepentantGeek on April 19, 2010 at 11:44 AM

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 11:33 AM

The general willingness to humor these most irresponsible and whiny parents is diminishing.

I say bring on the legal, unregulated herb. It can be a test case for industry standardization. Those who would be at the forefront of marijuana entrepreneurship are very much interested in producing verifiable, quality product. Think of them as microbrewers, serving niche and connoisseur markets.

ernesto on April 19, 2010 at 11:45 AM

A study of patients in a shock-trauma unit who had been in traffic accidents revealed that 15 percent of those who had been driving a car or motorcycle had been smoking marijuana, and another 17 percent had both THC and alcohol in their blood…Soderstrom, C. A.; Dischinger, P. C.; Kerns, T. I.; and Trifillis, A. L. Marijuana and other drug use among automobile and motorcycle drivers treated at a trauma center. Accid. Anal. Prey. 25: 131-5, 1995.

right2bright on April 19, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Comparing apples to elephants. THC takes 2-3 days to get through your system and not be detected by a blood test. Alcohol takes less than 24 hours. Because THC was detected in those drivers does not mean they were under the influence of THC at the time they were driving. They could have smoked a joint 2 days before and it would still show up as being in their system even though it would have no impact on their abilities on the day in question. Alcohol testing is much more accurate and BAC allows you to understand how intoxicated the individual was at a very specific time.

I’ve been around drunks and I’ve been around stoned potheads. I’ll take 100 potheads over 1 drunk any day of the week.

Alcohol is the single most destructive force in our country today.

ButterflyDragon on April 19, 2010 at 11:46 AM

So the answer seems to be the one that has not yet occurred to the Kingdom of the Obamalekites:

Legalize pot, then ban ownership, or operation of, personal motor vehicles.

No doubt some global warmer is salivating over that one.

BemusedMalkinite on April 19, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Kafir on April 19, 2010 at 11:26 AM

You are misquoting what your chemistry teacher said in a big way. Why do I think the above. I have said similar things to my classes. The drugs used to make you high mimic our natural endorphins. They attach to the same sites in the brain. The issue is that the chemical differences between the drugs and endorphins hinder the body from removing them from the site and cause the high to last much longer than those initiated by endorphins. And yes sometimes it is only a difference in placement of side groups.

chemman on April 19, 2010 at 11:47 AM

And everyone worrying about the logistics of quality control, etc has obviously never lived/visited the Netherlands.
search4truth on April 19, 2010 at 11:24 AM

And are you really going to say that the logistics of 16 million in an area the size of Maryland is the same as the US with 300 million and a whole lot more land?
That is an argument I am willing to have.

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 11:48 AM

What would happen if you offered huge tax breaks to Anheuser Busch and the other brewers for growing enough pot to replace 50% of their product line with it?

BemusedMalkinite on April 19, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Maybe that is the problem…you don’t understand common sense.
Since the number one killer of teenagers is traffic deaths (and being high is the number one reason for that), let’s allow a drug to become legal that will greatly increase that number…yeah, that makes perfect sense.
That is just one of a myriad of reason not to allow legalization.
Making a few bucks in taxes, rather then controlling spending is one of the weakest reasons.
Notice none of the proponents of creating more taxes, ever state anything about controlling government spending and lowering taxes…

right2bright on April 19, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Again, no common sense reasons for it’s illegality.

What you just gave is a reason to prohibit alcohol, the true gateway drug. But I’m 100% certain you are not in favor of making alcohol illegal. Alcohol causes more traffic deaths than marijuana by an exponential percentage, and yet you give the same, tired, debunked reasoning.

How much do you think the US Gov’t spends on “prevention” that never works? That’s where you start cutting spending, but removing the burden from local, state, and federal courts and law offices and prisons. A little extra tax revenue is a bonus compared to the amount of money no longer required to punish people for what exactly?

uknowmorethanme on April 19, 2010 at 11:50 AM

ButterflyDragon on April 19, 2010 at 11:46 AM

THC is a fat soluble compound. As such it can show up in tests for more than 3 days after use. Don’t for a moment believe that you can pass a drug screen that tests for THC it you haven’t used in the past 3 days.

chemman on April 19, 2010 at 11:51 AM

And everyone worrying about the logistics of quality control, etc has obviously never lived/visited the Netherlands.
search4truth on April 19, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Most people who are not ignorant about the subject know that THC concentration is controlled by the strain and the breeding. The “quality control” is a simple as testing the seeds.

uknowmorethanme on April 19, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Should have added this to my post:

I don’t toke, nor will I if it is legalized – but I agree that the ridiculously harsh targeting of potheads by law enforcement has to stop, as most are no danger to anyone.

BemusedMalkinite on April 19, 2010 at 11:52 AM

There is no such thing as 2nd had drunk. It’s bad enough that I have to walk past people smoking cigarettes.

- The Cat

P.S. It’s also one of the reasons why hippies smell

MirCat on April 19, 2010 at 11:52 AM

While we’re marching in the streets to demand an end to nanny-state policies, we should at least reconsider this 72-year-old nanny-state anachronism.

I agree, Ed. Pass the doobie, please.

petefrt on April 19, 2010 at 11:52 AM

THC is a fat soluble compound. As such it can show up in tests for more than 3 days after use. Don’t for a moment believe that you can pass a drug screen that tests for THC it you haven’t used in the past 3 days.

chemman on April 19, 2010 at 11:51 AM

YOu need 30 days to be clean, depending on the intake, 15 days with detox chemicals and lots and lots of water and exercise.

uknowmorethanme on April 19, 2010 at 11:52 AM

The general willingness to humor these most irresponsible and whiny parents is diminishing.
I say bring on the legal, unregulated herb. It can be a test case for industry standardization. Those who would be at the forefront of marijuana entrepreneurship are very much interested in producing verifiable, quality product. Think of them as microbrewers, serving niche and connoisseur markets.
ernesto on April 19, 2010 at 11:45 AM
And micro brewers are still licensed by the State and locality, and visited by the BATF, and their product is inspected on a regular basis to make sure it complies with a variety of laws.
And there is the dram law, and the tort laws of allowing people to get drunk and who is responsible. And do not forget underage smoking (which is already a joke) and who will be responsible.
Do you really want to have a party where someone gets high, wrecks their car, and claims it is your fault the accident happened (this is the current tort law in many states for alcohol)and sue you?
Tort lawyers will love the legalization of Pot.

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM

P.S. It’s also one of the reasons why hippies smell

MirCat on April 19, 2010 at 11:52 AM

“Correction Madam, I stink and You smell.” – author dunno

whiskeytango on April 19, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Yeah, wait ……. what’s this thread about again ??

Jerome Horwitz on April 19, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 11:39 AM

While I am amicable to your argument one thing always breaks down for me. Who pays for the rehab of those individuals who’s biochemical endowment lead to addictions. If people want the freedom to do with their bodies as they please then they need to be individually accountable for the results.

chemman on April 19, 2010 at 12:01 PM

“Correction Madam, I stink and You smell.” – author dunno

whiskeytango on April 19, 2010 at 11:57 AM

I was using the intransitive not the transitive verb.

- The Cat

MirCat on April 19, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Most people who are not ignorant about the subject know that THC concentration is controlled by the strain and the breeding. The “quality control” is a simple as testing the seeds.
uknowmorethanme on April 19, 2010 at 11:51 AM

And who tests the seeds, which govt. agency are you expanding to test these seeds? And what are the upper and lower limits of THC that can be bought? And who will inspect the place they are grown to make sure there is no contamination or Salmonella?
And at what level is someone legally impaired by THC?
What is the legal age that someone can buy?
How do you prevent underage smoking?
Will the dram law be in effect?
Will you be responsible if some one gets high at your place and has an accident similar to drunkenness responsibility?

Pot legalization sounds great until you think about it and the second and third order effects.

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 12:02 PM

There are compelling arguments for and against legalization. But they get muddied when people issue such lies like:

Never mind that by virtually every measure, pot is safer and less than disruptive than booze.

The pros and cons of legalizing or decriminalizing pot should be discussed, but with full information.

How anyone can think smoking is bad for you, but pot is harmless is beyond me. Maybe because I’ve seen the lungs in autopsy of a daily pot smoker. Or I have common sense.

Full disclosure: I tend to lean toward legalization because I think people should be allowed to use/enjoy products that aren’t always good for them, as long as they use those products responsibly. IE: I like an occasional cigar, but I wouldn’t light one up in a kindergarten class. I like an occasional beer, but would never consider driving for at least 2 hours after drinking one, I like pizza but don’t eat it every night, etc.

All I’m asking for is some honesty from BOTH sides. Pot is no better than alcohol or cigarettes and when people argue that it’s harmless, or significantly less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes, it’s hard to take any other legitimate arguements they may have seriously.

DrAllecon on April 19, 2010 at 12:03 PM

uknowmorethanme on April 19, 2010 at 11:52 AM

For occasional use I would agree. Habitual use is a different story.

chemman on April 19, 2010 at 12:03 PM

While I am amicable to your argument one thing always breaks down for me. Who pays for the rehab of those individuals who’s biochemical endowment lead to addictions. If people want the freedom to do with their bodies as they please then they need to be individually accountable for the results.

chemman on April 19, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Obamacare has already resolved that problem.

Keep in mind an addictive personality will find something to get addicted to, regardless. I am unaware of any physically addictive qualities of marijuana, while alcohol is a long established fact.

What do we currently do with alcoholics? (I mean other than send them to Hollywood to make movies?)

ButterflyDragon on April 19, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Thanks for the good, reasonable post, Ed. I agree that generating tax revenue should not be a part of the argument.

Bugler on April 19, 2010 at 12:05 PM

I don’t want the Federal Government in the Drug, Alcohol, Tobacco or Firearms business. They should make no laws or tax any of the above. Theses things belong to the States. If they legalize drugs will have the ATFD replace the ATF. Get Federal Government out of where it has no business being. Repeal the 17 amendment and give states back there rights. THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY IT IS A REPUBLIC. Democracies form in to mob rules where rights are violated. Which is happen to us.

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 12:05 PM

ButterflyDragon on April 19, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Your answer is why it breaks down for me. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy. My argument is if you want the freedom to use potentially harmful materials on/in your body then you need to pay for the repair out of your own wallet.

chemman on April 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM

I don’t want the Federal Government in the Drug, Alcohol, Tobacco or Firearms business. They should make no laws or tax any of the above. Theses things belong to the States. If they legalize drugs will have the ATFD replace the ATF. Get Federal Government out of where it has no business being. Repeal the 17 amendment and give states back there rights.
Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 12:05 PM

As much as I dislike the Federal Govt, on of its jobs is weights and measures. When you are talking about a consumable good whether it be bacon, soda, salt, or if legalized, pot there are going to have to be some limits to what is and is not safe and acceptable. And some one has to inspect to make sure those limits are met.
The States are not well equipped to do this (see health insurance regulations if you want to see a dysfunctional example) so the Federal Government in one of its few Constitutionally mandated roles steps in.
Heck if the Feds can inspect your Raisin Bran why can they not inspect your dope?

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM

chemman on April 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Okay lets start charging a health tax on fatty food.. Then treatment for alcoholism must be stripped away also. People who ride motor cycles need to pay more. I can see anti-drug and anti-alcohol terms in health care policies or pay for it in extra insurance but if alcohol is not included then NO!

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Pot legalization sounds great until you think about it and the second and third order effects.

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 12:02 PM

The problem is, preventing those second and third order effects is simply more expensive and intrusive than its worth. The status quo is indefensible.

ernesto on April 19, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Your answer is why it breaks down for me. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy. My argument is if you want the freedom to use potentially harmful materials on/in your body then you need to pay for the repair out of your own wallet.

chemman on April 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM

So, you’re saying alcohol should be declared illegal? What do we do with alcoholics in this country right now? Do they pay their own way for rehab? Or do most of them go through life making unhealthy choices and destroying everything they touch?

I agree with what you’re saying, but I don’t see how anything changes whether marijuana is legal or illegal. People smoke pot now, what happens to their medical bills?

Unless you believe legalization will cause a huge increase in consumption. And that may very well occur. But the law of the land is Obamacare. (Whether we like it or not) And that resolves any argument regarding responsibility of health care costs. We will all be paying for each other’s bad habits in the near future.

ButterflyDragon on April 19, 2010 at 12:21 PM

So a functioning underground economy will come out into the open IN ORDER TO PAY TAXES?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Sure, and I’m the tooth fairy!

GarandFan on April 19, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Federal Government in one of its few Constitutionally mandated roles steps in.
Heck if the Feds can inspect your Raisin Bran why can they not inspect your dope?
LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Where in the constitution is the Federal government given this authority?

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Anyone who thinks that allowing people to smoke a product that they can grow inside their own house is going to bring in a lot of tax revenue must be smoking something.

pedestrian on April 19, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Nannies to the left of me, nannies to the right.

Rae on April 19, 2010 at 12:23 PM

GarandFan on April 19, 2010 at 12:21 PM

PJ O’Rourke, in his book The CEO of the Sofa, very eloquently pointed out that both the drug legalization advocates and the Drug Warriors tended to work for the other side whenever the occasion warranted doing so. Methinks the “underground economy” issue is a big reason why. FOR BOTH SIDES.

BradSchwartze on April 19, 2010 at 12:34 PM

FORGET THE TAXES NO TAXES!!!!! Saving in stopping the drug war alone will save billions. It’s a states issue the states can regulate it and tax it. The Federal government has no constitutional authority to do it.
When you follow the constitution it becomes so simple. Theres a problem we need a federal law, the law results in more problems we need another federal law and another and another and we need to expand the powers and size of federal government. and now here we are now with a country on verge of collapse, going the way of Rome where the Government, and tax dependent consumers became larger than the producers.

annies to the left of me, nannies to the right.

Rae on April 19, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Got that right! Its so simple why do people think they are so much smarter than founders of the greatest form of government in history when they don’t even know anything about history?

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Where in the constitution is the Federal government given this authority?
Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Article I section 8 (weights and measures) and Section 10 (inspections)

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 12:37 PM

We already are paying for health care of drugs and alcohol. Countries who are legalizing drug are seeing decrease in drug use. It changes the conversation from its illegal and were going to break down your door and shoot you by accident of course because your using or selling drugs to a one on health care issues. It becomes uncool to do drugs. It will not increase drug use in long run. People who want to use drugs can find them and use them now. The savings in stopping the drug war far out weigh the cost of healthcare that we have to pay for our selfs unless we have already lost the single government run socialized health care debate . Then lets start talking what else is causing our health care cost so high. I say then lets tax on how much you weigh

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM

The problem is, preventing those second and third order effects is simply more expensive and intrusive than its worth. The status quo is indefensible.
ernesto on April 19, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Why is that? We have laws against speeding, it is pretty much universally recognized in the US that speeding is bad, and should be punished. Yet for some strange reason despite laws, Shep Smith drooling all over the TV every time there is a high speed chase and long prison terms, and police, and CSI, (with it’s own TV show even) and lots of religious people all saying “don’t do that” people still speed.
Disobedience to a law is still better than no law.
You could not bottle water from the Hudson and sell it with out a whole lot of other people involved, some to protect the consumer, most there to tax your activity. While I agree that we have too many leeches, we should have inspectors to make sure what you are selling in water and not urine and somebody has to pay the inspectors salary.

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Section 8 -Congress may establish uniform laws relating to naturalization and bankruptcy. It may also coin money, regulate the value of American or foreign currency and punish counterfeiters. Congress may fix the standards of weights and measures.

Okay it can regulate how much an oz of pot weighs

Section 10- States may not, without the consent of Congress, tax imports or exports except for the fulfillment of state inspection laws

States are doing the inspecting. Try again be specific .

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 12:56 PM

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Enforcing speeding doesn’t cost upwards of 8 billion a year, while encouraging ever more militarized police departments to invade peoples homes.

ernesto on April 19, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Oh i get it its the “living constitutional document” your talking about, the one we are revising as we make it up one to do what every we want. Where “what is up is down and what is down is up” and definition of is.. is what?

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Reading these post make me wonder.

What if instead of legalizing it we made it legal to put THC into drinks or pills. Then you could get the high without the bad lungs. Although this may not actually work. If legal it would seem to me a safer delivery method could be achieved though.

Until it is though I would be for limited legalization. Highly taxed and only sold at State Licensed Facilities with stringent identification procedures more stringent than Alcohol. Perhaps at drug stores like pseudophedrine is sold.

Resale of should remain a felony. But you could grow your own and give it away to limited extent. Until a safe delivery method is developed. Should not take long I would think.

Steveangell on April 19, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM
We already are paying for health care of drugs and alcohol.

You are mixing arguments. What does that have to do with legalizing pot.

Countries who are legalizing drug are seeing decrease in drug use.

Why yes the British experiment in legalizing heroin was a smashing success…oh that’s right they tripled the number of users. And the Netherland has no problems with illegal drug use now that pot is legal there… other than the gang wars to control the extacy trade.

It changes the conversation from its illegal and were going to break down your door and shoot you by accident of course because your using or selling drugs to a one on health care issues.

And who pays for that health care?
And who licenses and inspects and gathers the taxes?
Which Govt departments are you suggesting we increase BATF, IRS, BLM, Labor Department?

It becomes uncool to do drugs.

Oh yes “You Think” ads have had so much more impact on smoking than raising taxes.

It will not increase drug use in long run. People who want to use drugs can find them and use them now.

And so can underage drinkers and smokers are you advocating the abdication of those laws; 10 yd olds can saddle up to the bar and light a camel while drinking a beer?

The savings in stopping the drug war far out weigh the cost of healthcare that we have to pay for our selfs unless we have already lost the single government run socialized health care debate.

So you’re advocating no drug laws at all? No border enforcement or inspection of goods

Then lets start talking what else is causing our health care cost so high. I say then lets tax on how much you weigh

Fine by me. But perhaps we should also tax based upon bad habits as well?

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, (1935) the Court unanimously struck down industrial codes regulating the slaughter of poultry, declaring that Congress could not regulate commerce relating to the poultry

Looks like Federal government is overstepping it’s authority under commerce clause and here is another example

In United States v. Lopez, the Court found that Congress could not exercise “Police power” reserved to the States by use of the Commerce Clause.

You will have to find someplace else in constitution where the Federal government has right to regulate drug use.

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 12:56 PM

The whole second paragraph of Section 10 last sentenance is kinda important

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

Specific enough for you.
Care to validate any of your claims?

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Never been there ….. but I hear you can get a beer at the movies, in a real glass too.

You can do that at the many draft house cinemas here in Texas too.

matthew26 on April 19, 2010 at 1:13 PM

We already are paying for health care of drugs and alcohol. Countries who are legalizing drug are seeing decrease in drug use. It changes the conversation from its illegal and were going to break down your door and shoot you by accident of course because your using or selling drugs to a one on health care issues. It becomes uncool to do drugs. It will not increase drug use in long run. People who want to use drugs can find them and use them now…

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM

“Things forbidden have a secret charm.”
–Tacitus

Rae on April 19, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, (1935)
You will have to find someplace else in constitution where the Federal government has right to regulate drug use.

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 1:11 PM

So you are saying that the Constitution was written in 1935?
Or are you proclaiming the Supremacy of the Supreme Court like a liberal?

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Can’t have an open container in the streets, and California doesnt want people smoking cigs outside or in your own home BUT they want to legalize this awful smelling gateway drug which does nothing but downsize a persons ambitions. Pot just makes a person comfortably numb and lord help us if it gets laced with some other addicting substance. May as well put COke back in Coke.

johnnyU on April 19, 2010 at 1:30 PM

BATF, IRS, BLM, Labor Department?

They all can go get rid of them all. IRS i might have but very much smaller because laws would be much simpler with small flat tax, after we cut the size of federal government to more than half it’s size. Some one said it will increase health care cost to legalized drugs is why I said We already have health care costs related to drugs. Border inspects for import duties okay, But not really in long run we need free trade. Heroin was legalized in england in about 1920 and Heroin use sky rocked in the 1960′s more so in USA and England. Less overdoses and crime in England than USA related to drugs. Netherlands you make my point Illegal drugs have crime gangs as result, Dutch has lower rate of illegal drug use per population than USA.

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 1:30 PM

So you are saying that the Constitution was written in 1935?
Or are you proclaiming the Supremacy of the Supreme Court like a liberal?

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Whats wrong with you? The congress tried to make laws that was unconstitutional and court corrected them.

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Oh, how I love the threads on this issue! Thank you, Ed!

This is one of the best ways to get all the Social-Con nannies to sit right up and sound right off. People that have no problem jumping up and down and screaming with the mob when it’s a liberal telling someone how life should be lived.

It’s the nannyism, folks. Pure and simple. And currently, it’s one of the biggest self-induced yet factually unforced errors our society is committing upon itself. And have been for going on 72 years now.

Instead of going on and on about what ‘may’ happen – oh, and please set aside the ‘who knows’ 9-11 truther ‘just asking questions’ style ignorant fantasization; as it is, millions of Americans know, first hand. They know that pot does have an effect on human physiology, but in a much more manageable and less intense manner than alcohol, without the side effects of massive degradation of motor control functions, hangovers, and the dreaded puking. They also are aware of the lack of physical dependency issues.

That’s on the personal level.

On a societal scale, we have ample historic example and precedence to demonstrate some of the more outlandish ‘what-if’ and ‘how’s that gonna work’ or ‘this is what’ll prolly happen’ scenarios. We know from the first 3-400 years of recorded experience of Europeans running around on the North American Continent, that large swaths of the population, if ‘allowed’ completely unregulated access to cannabis, won’t turn into a writhing mass of do-nothing slug colonies, but then maybe I missed something with the Swiss cheese number that ‘progressive’ education reform has done on American History. And this isn’t because the old dead white guys were too occupied with things to notice that the flowers of the female strain of one of their cash crops, if burned, gave off pungent, aromatic, fumes with noticeable effect.

But how can the government regulate it if everyone just grows it!?!?! The homebrew beer analogy is operative here – the answer is that not everyone will brew/grow their own, and those who take it beyond the level of hobby into a commercial enterprise are regulated the same as any other business – with a business license, tax id number, etc, etc. Does anyone care to make the argument that the government is unable to regulate alcohol because people can brew it for themselves at home? No, because there is a system in place that does that very thing right now. A wheel that does not have to be completely re-invented for a new item of inventory to consider, folks.

And how has the prohibition policy done? Accomplish all the high moral aspiration goals that are pointed to as the rationale for the policy in the first place, has it? Er, no, not hardly. Actually a spectacular fail on most levels. It doesn’t keep it out of the hands of youngsters – it is an acknowledged reality (to most folks) that it is actually easier for a teenager to ‘score’ some weed than it is for them to acquire tobacco or cigarettes. The reason for this is simple, as I’ve mentioned several times before – the clerk at the 7-11, working for a legitimate business that could face fines or be put out of business altogether is a much more responsible social agent in this area than the completely illicit drug dealer who faces no different punishment for selling to 16 year olds as he does to 35 year olds.

Oh, but my goodness! The Mexican cartels will corner the market, and STILL not pay taxes. Yeah, which is the reason that I used to really enjoy going to Mafia Gardens – oops, that would be BUSH Gardens, in Virginia. The model exists here too, folks. The criminal enterprises evaporate or are greatly diminished when the excess profit potential disappears, just as with the end of alcohol prohibition. Those that survive will be transformed into legitimate, contributing members of polite commercial society. Think the ‘master growers’ of the Humbolt region, with that area becoming a second Sonoma Valley.

But ohmigosh, it’ll grow gub’mint completely out of control, with regulators in and out our wazzoos 26 hours a day, 8 days a week! Please – and this goes back to the ‘how’s that policy workin out for ya’ – that’s pretty much what we’ve transformed the police and enforcement agents in our society into already! Breaking in doors in the middle of the night, with heavily armed para-military forces, resulting in real casualties – as in dead bodies – of both dedicated law enforcement professionals and innocent civilians (not to mention dead house pets). The entire situation fostering a malignant ‘us-versus-them’ mentality between the police and the populace, and vice versa.

As far as the ‘well we ain’t got time for that, Cletus, cause there’s bigger liberal fish to fry!’ argument goes, and what’s blindingly obvious, how much longer would you care to procrastinate fixing something that causes so much stupidity, waste, and excuse for government excess? Seems that a lot of folks are rip roaring to go out of the chute for topics that happen to strike their particular fancy – others, er, not so much, even if the underlying principles are what’s motivating and animating them for their pet project. . .

Wind Rider on April 19, 2010 at 1:35 PM

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws:

State is doing the inspecting not the federal government and is prohibited from collecting taxes on imports or export except to recover the states cost of doing inspections. ITS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JOB TO DO INSPECTION, specific enough for you.

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 1:37 PM

i always enjoy reading all the cries of “nannyism” from the pro-legalazation crowd that are soon followed by gleeful exultation of all the new taxes and government regulation resulting from legalazation.

clearbluesky on April 19, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Here’s what I know…

If you put my best friend and me in a room with a large stack of beer in it, we’ll likely be fighting with each other before long.

If you put my worst personal enemy and me in a room with a large stack of weed in it, we’ll soon be chums.

I never fear for my safety when everyone around me is stones. I often fear for my safety when everyone around me is drunk.

I can drink to excess every day of the week and even come into work hungover, and it’s not cause for termination. If I spark up a joint to watch MST3K on the weekends, I can be fired.

If I’m drunk in a restaurant and causing a scene and a policeman is aware of it, he’ll try to politely convince me it’s time to go home. If the same policeman is aware I’m doing a bong hit in my own home before the Simpsons, he’ll arrest me.

ynot4tony2 on April 19, 2010 at 1:48 PM

I can drink to excess every day of the week and even come into work hungover, and it’s not cause for termination

I’d like to work wherever you do, that would get me and everyone i know fired in a heartbeat.

clearbluesky on April 19, 2010 at 1:52 PM

clearbluesky on April 19, 2010 at 1:52 PM

I’d like to work wherever you do, that would get me and everyone i know fired in a heartbeat.

I never said coming into work drunk. Coming into work hungover never got anyone fired that I can think of.

I suppose I should have said, “come into work hungover once in a while.” If someone is hungover every day, they most certainly stand a good chance of being fired…but are probably more likely to be fired for being drunk on the job first if they are that into drinking.

ynot4tony2 on April 19, 2010 at 1:55 PM

No. New. Taxes.

ladyingray on April 19, 2010 at 2:03 PM

clearbluesky on April 19, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Ya really like that? Well, ya know, of course that the tax revenue benefits are likely wildly overstated – although it is a truism that reversing the current cash flow model will be financially beneficial overall (except, of course, to the likes of the Mexican cartels, oh, darn the bad luck). The figures are grossly inflated because for a number of reasons, the estimates are based upon notional ‘street’ prices for the drugs seized by the cops, not the price levels and structure that would eventually occur with a legalized product. The savings on the enforcement side are probably going to substantial, but without a marked immediate frop off – there would be a LOT of wailing from police agencies at all levels that have gotten ‘addicted’ to the cash flows to them based upon ‘drug interdiction’. Of course, they won’t do the obvious, which is to trim off the overgrown toys they’ve accumulated. They’ll squall their heads off that we’re about to descend into Mad Max anarchy because we’re erasing that thin blue line. . .

As for ‘extra gub’mint regulation’ – er, no thanks, you can keep that, and the change. An additional of modified basis in law – sure, that’s going to be a requirement, as we are a nation and society of laws, not whims, so everyone knows the rules. I’ll be happy to sit right there with ya, yardstick in hand, to energetically rap the knuckles of would be tyrannical apparatchiks looking to make the power play move off the situation.

Wind Rider on April 19, 2010 at 2:05 PM

What better reason to legalize pot than every President of the UNITED STATES for the last 18 years said they smoked pot.

jpcpt03 on April 19, 2010 at 2:08 PM

1. You’re not going to see that $6 Billion in revenue from legalizing pot without expendatures on enforcement of those collections, and

2. I prefer today’s organized gangs fighting over which of their neighborhoods will distribute the pot to future gang warfare that determines who gets to kidnap and hold ransom people coming and going from MY neighborhood. Taking pot away from being a profitable trade for criminals won’t stop them from being criminals – they’ll simply find some other way to get by. Ransom is big in countries the world over, BTW, and with “universal ransom coverage” no American will be small potatoes.

If we can’t stop criminals dealing drugs, how would we stop them from creating a nation where the only travel available was with armed guards, if kidnapping and extortion becomes their new way of doing “business?” No, thanks.

And if you buy ilicit drugs of any kind, you are the enemy. Don’t pretend otherwise.

shuzilla on April 19, 2010 at 2:25 PM

shuzilla on April 19, 2010 at 2:25 PM

What have YOU been smokin?

Wind Rider on April 19, 2010 at 2:29 PM

The one thing that is irritating about Libertarians is their obsession with this subject. They act as if all of our problems will go away if could just legalize pot. There will still be crime as people will still be arrested for driving, working while high and for underage users.

Depending on how heavily the pot is taxed, the local drug dealer might be able to compete on price. The dope dealers won’t go home either, they will just sell other drugs or pot that is laced with other substances. People will still commit crimes to raise the money to buy drugs whether the supplier is legal or not.

Based on the Libertarian logic, all drugs should be legal. Knowing that we are paying vast sums of money for rehab, lost productivity, treating overdose patients etc does that mean we can cut that off?

echosyst on April 19, 2010 at 2:37 PM

You know I love you but I have to disagree. If you make it legal you have two choices caveat emptor, which will never be allowed to happen. It would be like buying your baby formula from China, it might be safe, it might be powdered chalk and limestone. The media will have a field day with that “My little Johnny smoked Ernesto Special and now he is crippled because there is no regulation on the THC, and Ernesto threw in Azalea leaves.” Or you can regulate it from the start (one of the few Federal Govt jobs that should be done is weights, measures and safety), which leads to expansion of all those agencies I listed.
Would you walk into a 7-11 and drink a pre-opened soda trusting that no one put anything harmful in it or do you want it sealed to prevent tampering?

LincolntheHun on April 19, 2010 at 11:33 AM

A pre-opened soda? Tell me does your produce have tamper prevention? Plants that are not processed are usually not sold sealed, unless you count the plastic bag and the twisty tie. Herbalist stores already exist and I don’t see why it shouldn’t be the same as long as one is an adult. Seems to me like your jumping the gun on the “there oughta be a law” stuff.

Caveat emptor is already the status quo, we aren’t inundated with Azalea leaves now. Quit trying to give the BATF more work, especially on a day like today, they should have been dismantled long ago.

LevStrauss on April 19, 2010 at 2:37 PM

And if you buy ilicit drugs of any kind, you are the enemy. Don’t pretend otherwise.

shuzilla on April 19, 2010 at 2:25 PM

D*mn straight. I am disgusted at the people who equate ‘freedom’ with giving direct financial aid to those who carry on all manner of despicable acts.

To all the braindead dopers on this thread: every ounce of Mary Jane you buy means more money for the lowest forms of criminal scum to purchase black-market weapons, hire hitmen, and fund the poisoning of future generations. Take a look at gang and drug-related violence in your local news. The valiant men and women killed in the line of duty, innocent people maimed and robbed (or worse) by substance-crazed criminals, the heartbroken families mourning a son or daughter lost to substance abuse.

Now chew on this: if you buy illegal drugs, you are partially responsible for all of that!

Dark-Star on April 19, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Dark-Star on April 19, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Did you ever take an economics class?

LevStrauss on April 19, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Did you ever take an economics class?

LevStrauss on April 19, 2010 at 2:44 PM

One of the first things I learned was that if a lot of people buy something, there will be a heavy demand for said thing, and an increase in the ‘side effects’ of the person(s) that provide it.

Thus, a heavy demand for harmful drugs means a hearty supply…and the crime that goes with them.

Since we apparently haven’t the willpower to say ‘no’, the only recourse we have is to cut the supply. But in an age of increasing disrespect for ANY law or the side effects of doing so, our police forces are fighting a losing battle.

Dark-Star on April 19, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Dark-Star on April 19, 2010 at 2:49 PM
Thus, a heavy demand for harmful drugs means a hearty supply

Actually a heavy demand just means the price goes up, making providing drugs more profitable. In the long run this causes the supply to increase since more people want to partake in the large profit – driving the price down over the long run.

dpierson on April 19, 2010 at 2:55 PM

uknowmorethanme on April 19, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Do you just pick and choose what posts to read…I gave you links showing where drivers were under the influence, you said none were.
No use arguing with a person who ignores basic, fundamental facts.
If you think the earth is flat, I can’t convince you otherwise unless we both are on the same plane…I gave you the links, and we should have been on the same plane, but you closed your eyes.
You just go on believing that pot causes no problems or threats with teenagers…yeah, that makes sense…

right2bright on April 19, 2010 at 2:55 PM

No

tom on April 19, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Alcohol is the single most destructive force in our country today.

ButterflyDragon on April 19, 2010 at 11:46 AM

No problem with that statement, so you might as well add another drug, good thinking.
And of the thousands of tests, none were found to be driving under the influence of pot, they had all smoked it days before being in an accident…the statement was pot caused no fatalities.
What the link conceded (and you like the other didn’t read it, you have your own agenda), is that the two together made up the bulk of the accidents.
Now make it more available, and your argument is that stats won’t change? Are you sure you aren’t taking some drug?
The linkage is already proven…

right2bright on April 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM

In my mind, the only fully legitimate argument among the three is the last. I don’t think the federal government needs more revenue, and I’m a little surprised to hear a libertarian offer that as a feature rather than a bug.

While I agree with your point about inevitability (it’s a terrible argument if for no other reason that to say so stands contradictory to the concept of free will), I have to disagree with you on the point about revenue.

Try not thinking about it as more revenue; think about it as other revenue.

IMHO, any tax you can place is superior to a tax on income. We want to tax people on consumptive, as opposed to productive activity. $6 billion in marijuana taxes is $6 billion that either doesn’t have to be assessed on income, or $6 billion that doesn’t have to be borrowed.

JohnGalt23 on April 19, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Now chew on this: if you buy illegal drugs support prohibition, you are partially sompletely responsible for all of that!

Dark-Star on April 19, 2010 at 2:40 PM

FIFY

Kudos for making the most forceful argument based upon a symptom of the prohibition as a justification for the prohibition! You’ve earned yourself a self-licking ice cream cone!

Wind Rider on April 19, 2010 at 3:04 PM

When you really want something you will make any argument to get it. The pot-heads are just using the tax argument as another wedge to get their little habit legalized.

dpierson on April 19, 2010 at 3:07 PM

While some people do use alcohol to get “high” it is not necessarily the outcome.

Oh, please.

People drink alcohol to get high. Now, it may just be beer. Or it may just be one cocktail. But there’s a reason it’s beer, or liquor, and not soda pop or fruit juice. And that reason is “high”.

JohnGalt23 on April 19, 2010 at 3:07 PM

more scientific research into the mating life of mole rats

Hey now. What Barney Frank does in his own home is his business.

Aviator on April 19, 2010 at 10:34 AM

DUDE.

There is root beer all over my screen. Whiskey tango foxtrot, man, at least warn me. XD

KinleyArdal on April 19, 2010 at 3:07 PM

To all the braindead dopers on this thread: every ounce of Mary Jane you buy means more money for the lowest forms of criminal scum to purchase black-market weapons, hire hitmen, and fund the poisoning of future generations. Take a look at gang and drug-related violence in your local news.

All caused because it’s illegal giving opportunity to criminals to take up the trade. I don’t drink or get high, but I think it is your right to do so if you want. It is states right issue really. Federal Government should make no laws regarding it. It should be left to States.

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Oh, please.

People drink alcohol to get high. Now, it may just be beer. Or it may just be one cocktail. But there’s a reason it’s beer, or liquor, and not soda pop or fruit juice. And that reason is “high”.

JohnGalt23 on April 19, 2010 at 3:07 PM

What? Have you ever tasted beer or wine? Or maybe you have never tasted pop or fruit juice.

pedestrian on April 19, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Three other items which I can’t recall seeing mentioned during discussions on this subject at HA:

1) Civil asset forfeiture laws give LEOs a perverse incentive. If the cops simply claim that an item you own (i.e., car, home, boat, etc.) was purchased with “drug profits”, your property can be seized without any due process whatsoever.

You will have to pony-up the money to sue the government to get it back…if you’re able to do that before the cops auction it off. (And they generally get to keep part or all of the proceeds.)

2) Corruption of LEOs and their agencies. (See #1 above.)

3) The injury or death of utterly innocent citizens and/or damage to their homes when the police do not properly investigate or just make crap up prior to obtaining a warrant for a no-knock raid, donning their paramilitary gear and knocking down doors.

Fatwa Arbuckle on April 19, 2010 at 3:09 PM

What, I can grow carrots and tomatoes, but not weed? If it’s made legal, I’ll grow my own. Simple.

RonD504 on April 19, 2010 at 10:22 AM

And a lot of people will do so.

But even with carrots and tomatoes, some people choose to allow others to grow them, and then they pay the profit and any appropriate tax.

There’s no reason to believe marijuana would be any different.

JohnGalt23 on April 19, 2010 at 3:09 PM

We never learn. Prohibition is what started the Mob.

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 3:10 PM

“Legalize Pot so that Teachers and other Public Unions can continue to live the high life in retirement”

/unspoken reality

jp on April 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM

If the last 30 years has taught us anything, it is that spending decisions made by our government has little, if any relation to tax policy.

JohnGalt23 on April 19, 2010 at 3:11 PM

What? Have you ever tasted beer or wine? Or maybe you have never tasted pop or fruit juice.

pedestrian on April 19, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Yeah. Both beer and wine have, to a greater or lesser extent, a slight taste of poison.

Now why would people be deliberately drinking something that tastes like poison, if not to use that poison to get high?

JohnGalt23 on April 19, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 3:10 PM

The only issue with your comparison is that a large majority of people drink alcohol so banning it because a minority pushed the issue offended almost everyone (And caused the eventual repeal of prohibition). Smoking pot is not something done by a majority of Americans so keeping it banned only affects a small number of people.

dpierson on April 19, 2010 at 3:14 PM

JohnGalt23 on April 19, 2010 at 3:13 PM

WTF have you been drinking. My beer tastes just fine thank you.

dpierson on April 19, 2010 at 3:15 PM

We never learn. Prohibition is what started the Mob.

Ed Laskie on April 19, 2010 at 3:10 PM

You mean Joseph Kennedy?
It didn’t “start” the mob, but it gave them a point of reference. Without prohibition the mob would have been there.
I don’t think you can compare alcohol to pot, different animals.
The influence on kids life’s would be disastrous…just read some of the arguments and you can see how tainted the thinking of people who use pot is.

right2bright on April 19, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Ed, I\’m surprised at your position…Illegal drugs and in particular marijuana nearly destroyed the post-Vietnam military. We had troops working on airplanes while high. We even had pilots involved in crashes while high. It is absolutely devastating to the good order and discipline of the military. Have you been to Holland? I\’ve been to Amsterdam several times…The crime, trash, grafitti and the jaded eyes of their young people are commensurate with the legalized pot and hash…Finally, we have a huge personal discipline and responsibility issue here in the Unites States. I don\’t see legalized marijuana helping in that regard. In fact, I am convinced that we are merely playing with fire on a grand scale…The few billions saved by police will be quickly sqaundered by government at all levels and we will be dealing with more doped up young people. They don\’t call it dope for nothing…

Nozzle on April 19, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Legalizing it does not necessarily mean that anyone is allowed to grow it. They still have some moonshining laws on the books.

Abby Adams on April 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM

it would be highly regulated form of it, most likely.

jp on April 19, 2010 at 10:36 AM

Actually, I suspect it would probably be treated a lot like beer, in that homebrewers/homegrowers (people growing or brewing a limited amount not for sale) would not fall under severe regulation, while those engaged in commercial operations would have fairly tight regulations.

JohnGalt23 on April 19, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Oh, please.

People drink alcohol to get high. Now, it may just be beer. Or it may just be one cocktail. But there’s a reason it’s beer, or liquor, and not soda pop or fruit juice. And that reason is “high”.

JohnGalt23 on April 19, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Yeah. Yeah. Both beer and wine have, to a greater or lesser extent, a slight taste of poison.

Now why would people be deliberately drinking something that tastes like poison, if not to use that poison to get high?

JohnGalt23 on April 19, 2010 at 3:13 PM

What the heck have you been drinking?
So you are saying that Jesus drank wine just to get “high”?
Man, we have had some weird posts today, but you may have won the prize…”taste of poison”…

right2bright on April 19, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5