Economists call for marijuana legalization

[Gargamellow]

tikker..you don't know me at all

[Tikker]

tikker..you don't know me at all

no, but I can read all of the incoherent stuff you post EVERY DAY

[Gargamellow]

my nt posts to not represent who i am...get a clue

[Tikker]

my nt posts to not represent who i am...get a clue

you're very good at pretending to be a burnt out old pot head then


grats

[Zanchief]

my nt posts to not represent who i am...get a clue

you're very good at pretending to be a burnt out old pot head then


grats

hahaha

[Gargamellow]

hilarious...burn outs don't go to college..even for shitty degrees

secondly, who are you?

exactly.

[Spazz]

Mindia are you for making alchohol against the law again as well ?

[Arlos]

Ok Arlos, here's the deal. I used to smoke weed, and many people here probably remember this. Marijuana is a powerful high. I don't care if people make the claim that it just gives them the munchies and mellows them out. Bullshit. THC is a powerful, mind-altering drug, and it scares the crap out of me knowing that if marijuana became legalized that millions of people will get behind the wheel and drive while being stoned. We have enough problems and fatal car crashes every year because of drunks behind the wheel... let's not exacerbate that problem by throwing stoned drivers into the mix.

Yes, THC *can* have positive medicinal effects on patients dealing with aids and glaucoma, but let's be real here... you know as well as I that people will use it as an excuse to get high legally.

See, now that's a reasoning I can respect and understand. I can even agree with it to a certain extent. I would absolutely support making the DWI laws a lot harsher at the same time pot was legalized, to make sure that anyone who got completely blotto and drove got the book thrown at them.

There is a difference, however, between completely stoned and lightly buzzed, much the same way as there's a difference between having 1 beer and having an entire bottle of JD. (if we're looking at extreme differences here). 1 beer will not put anyone but the smallest of people over the legal alcohol limit, and thus is legal to drive with. Similarly, someone who only smokes a little bit of pot will not be significantly impaired, if at all.

Actually, numerous studies have found that alcohol is vastly worse for driving performance than pot is, including a study done by the CHP in the 80s titled . Here's a link to one such study: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Mis ... g/s1p2.htm

They found, among other things, that even someone who'd smoked 3 joints in a row, and had a correspondingly high concentration of THC in their bloodstream performed on average exactly the same as someone with a blood alcohol content of 0.07%, which would be legal in California.

Now, I'm by no means advocating getting stoned and going driving. No responsible person will get completely stoned and go drive somewhere, no more than they'd get drunk and do so. So, in any case, we know alcohol is far worse for impairing driving, especially in high doses, than is pot. I don't believe that legalizing pot would appreciably increase the number of accidents we currently see, especially given the emphasis on stopping DUIs that we see in the media, which has cut down drunk driving by a significant margin.

-Arlos

[Spazz]

Also your wanting the goverment to play the role of mommy and daddy to make you feel more secure. What about people who dont drive high ? Or smoke responsibly while at home. Becuase YOUR afraid of how some people might react you want the government to punish all regardless of if they are being responsible adults or not ? It really shouldnt be the governments place to tell people what to do in a free country no matter how you look at it. How bout instead of preventive punishment we start punishing people once they have done something.

Keeping pot illegal ( weather you like it or not) costs a fuck ton of money and keeps various LEOS busy from real work. I think your letting fear and not commen sense rule your judgement.

[Spazz]

I dont wanna be the one to say it but i can drive just fine after smoking weed. Ill also admit that after some drinkin i shouldnt go anywhere near my car.

[ClakarEQ]

I've been a pot head for 20+ years as well. I won't be so foolish to say there hasn't been a cost, both financially and ethically but I will not agree with those that would say you get "dumber". The brain is self healing and you don't forever damage braincells by smokeing or drinking.

However I can agree with damageing cells faster than the brain can heal.

I'll agree with Mindia on the point of smokeing pot and driving, then causing an accident should be no different then being drunk and driving (e.g. you go to prison)

But along the lines of what spazz states, it does cost a fuck ton more cash to fight an un-winable war where if the coin was flipped would be a cash boon to the economy as a whole. As well as putting out a fair chunk of criminal types at the same time. I really don't see how this could be a lose in any shape or form.

[Tikker]

actually, I'm going to change my mind, on 1 condition

legalize pot, and any other drugs you want

tax the bejesus out of it liquor/gasoline stylez
lower the tax on something else like TVs, or food, or whatever(ie, same amount of tax monies are coming in as before)

do it that way, and I'm cool with legalizing it

[Tossica]

You don't need to lower the tax on anything else because you now have a net gain of billions of dollars a year by not trying to criminalize it plus more billions in tax from the sale of the legal substance.

[Arlos]

And think of what those billions could fund: Health care, education, affordable housing for the homeless, etc.

-Arlos

[Tikker]

You don't need to lower the tax on anything else because you now have a net gain of billions of dollars a year by not trying to criminalize it plus more billions in tax from the sale of the legal substance.

eh?

that's almost opposite of what I"m saying

if legalizing pot means you gain X amount, then lower the rest of taxes on everything else so that you end up with the same taxation income at the end of the day


(ie, push the tax burden onto the willing druggies)

[Tossica]

Ugh... the tax burden IS on the willing druggies because they are the ones that are buying it.

[Yamori]

And think of what those billions could fund: Health care, education, affordable housing for the homeless, etc.

-Arlos

We could invade Iran!!!

[Jay]

And think of what those billions could fund: Health care, education, affordable housing for the homeless, etc.

-Arlos

Helping the homeless doesn't make us any money so the government won't do shit about it.

[Yamori]

I was a stoner for about 1 year. I would advise most people not to take up the habbit, but it's not terribly damaging.

But yeah, even from a really conservative viewpoint, legalizing makes sense... It's simply a matter of damage control.

Bad sides of illegalization:

1) BILLIONS of dollars spent investigating, prosecuting, imprisoning, and ruining the lives of people (who are productive and peaceful parents/spouses/children/friends/employees) for something they do in the privacy of their own home.

2) Loads of police time, energy, and man-power is used towards drug crime (pot being a major one) when it could be spent on violent criminals.

3) Prisons are overfull primarily due to private-use drug convictions. Cong Bubba the rapist getting early parole to make room for Spudsworth the pothead. ;D

4) It uses bizarre, counterproductive logic that causes more social harm than the drugs themselves:
*Drugs are bad because they can potentially ruin peoples' lives and hurt families.
*Lets make drugs illegal to protect people from this.
*Lets protect these people by utterly ruining the lives of any of them that use a drug, by throwing them in a prison cell filled with insane, violent people and break up their family for a few years! Yay.

5) The illegal drug trade will be weakened incredibly - or completely destroyed with total legalization of all major drugs. It will give an official 'fuck you! :D' to the Mafia, to gang 'turf' wars, to high murder rates, and hellish inner city ghettos (they'll turn into shitty inner city ghettos. :P).

6) Major conflicts of legal interest indirectly caused by it. People are reluctant to tell doctors about their use when it could be crucial. People have no civilized manner of dispute resolution in drug related exchanges since they obviously can't report it to the police or bring it to court (cong violence that could be avoided). Drugs can pretty easily be planted on innocent peoples' persons or property - especially nasty since property can be 'confiscated' and finances can be frozen by the government with sufficiently large amounts found. And much more.

7) It's obviously not working.

-

Bad sides of legalization in the worst case:

Pot use might increase or decrease over time if it were legalized. It's hard to say and is pretty sociologically debatable. Ie, pot use in Amsterdam (by locals, not tourists) is negligable. But the US isn't Amsterdam and could react differently. It might increase near the popularity of beer, or it might decrease due to it having no 'rebel' allure and will morph into a habbit of pathetic folk. It's probably impossible to say for sure until it happens.

But if it increases to be about on par with alcohol use/abuse, we'll have:

1) A bit more lung cancer. 1 joint is basically = to roughly 1 pack of cigs in terms of damage. Major stoners will be in the same boat as those folks. But the health conscious stoners could cook/vaporize/drink it (ie 'green dragon' vodka) instead of smoking it. Casual, infrequent users won't be at much risk.

2) Weak willed people can get addicted and waste their money away on it: there is no physical addiction to THC, but there can definitely be an emotional one, pretty much on par with gambling/video game/ect addiction. At least it will be cheaper if its legalized, to balance it out a little bit.

3) A number of irresponsible schmoes will do worse in school/work. Basically like a lesser version of the negative effects of alcoholism on the general workforce. It can be dealt with the same way - firing them.

4) A number of irresponsible schmoes might drive under the influence. Pot-driving isn't nearly as dangerous as drunk driving by a huge degree, but it's still dangerous - especially in fast paced and intense driving on highways - and people obviously should never do it. DUI penalties can be substantially increased to compensate somewhat.

5) Potentially a small risk in a small percent of people of being a catalyst for mental illnesses - in those that are already highly susceptable to it or already have it. People with schizophrenic/bipolar/depressed people in their family history should probably keep away from it.


---

So yeah... on the one hand, you have billions of taxpayer's moneys being wasted on something that is known not to be effective, productive and peaceful peoples' lives being ruined for something they do to themselves in their own homes, and a major source of violent crime and decreased public safety - both directly and indirectly.

And on the other hand, you have a dramatic increase in tax revenue, a dramatic decrease in violent crime, but an unfortunate increase in minor social ills that can be a hassle sometimes.

It seems like a no brainer to me...


*PS: I know I sort of got into the legalize all drugs thing, but seperating the pot stuff from all of it should be easy enough.

[Narrock]

And think of what those billions could fund: Health care, education, affordable housing for the homeless, etc.

-Arlos

Hey Arlos, in theory, you're absolutely correct. But just imagine the government regulating this... rofl. Government seems to fuck up just about everything they get their mitts on. I see potential here for governmental abuse and misappropriation of funds received from sales of "legalized marijuana." Just look at the California state lottery for example. They *claim* that a large portion of funds taken in from sheep who buy lottery tickets are going to schools. HAH!

[Harrison]

Marijuana is a powerful high.

[Mop]

I gotta go with Eric on this one, govt could fuck even selling pot up that 16 year olds in my highschool mastered.