I was also keeping to the subject, which was that legalization would be a tax boon for the State. I'm not interested in a conversation about the broader question of whether we should legalize based on personal rights. I'll just conclude my involvement here by saying what I started with: I don't find the tax benefits to be a persuasive argument for legalization. Stick to the personal rights argument.
Personally, I don't find any ONE argument sufficient to support regulation of recreational drugs, but when you pile up all of the different arguments, it is unbelieveable to me that there are still people out there who support the continuation of prohibition.
Hilarious. You "shout" that like you've been saying it over and over for the last, say, eight years, when it has in truth only been the last six months. You favored the most ridiculously unnecessary (and most ridiculously large) expenditure in our modern history with your support of the war and now you're pretending to be a fiscal conservative? Too, too funny.
My position on this issue has evolved over the course of two decades. In 1987, I was as ardent a prohibitionist as John Walters and even thought we should prohibit alcohol again. Then, I started doing research.
I don't like pot personally, but it makes a lot more sense to me that alcohol should be prohibited than pot. At least pot has some good qualities.
I still don't like alcohol much. I probably consume the equivalent of 15 drinks per year (except this year, we hung out and drank wine with my mom and stepdad at Disney in February) because I just don't like what that drug does to me. My ideal recreational pharmaceutical would probably be something like Valium that I could take while hanging out at home on a weekend night without consuming all the calories in beer/wine/spirits or having negative effects on my lungs like pot.
Including mar1juana escalation into the equation -- pot is responsible for 82% of all drug related deaths.
That's based on the gateway drug argument. People who do hard drugs are going to do them whether pot's illegal or not, imo.
Legal pot could bring both negative and positive effect but no one know what could happen if it do? say if its legal now, what about the drug dealer who was making money of pot, what do they do now? do they go rob or steal for the money they are missing.
They get licensed and keep selling money, but pay taxes out of their profit. They will clean up their operations or risk getting their their license suspended. If they break the health code or other regulations, they will be be fined or get their license suspended. They definitely want to be a legit dealer have their products on shelf next to the cigarettes at the grocery store. People will pick up a pack of joints when they check out at the counter.
i smoke government **** already. might as well pay them and have it go towards the economy. i think the price would be reasonable.
Are you really that short sighted? If pot is legal, you just don't go down south to the border, find your favorite cartel to buy from, and start selling it. All the major tobacco companies or big corporate cats will control the market, not your thug dealers. Second, dealers are criminals. They are not going to take a 10% profit when they can move onto the next black market item, whether it guns, software piracy or anything else that will never become legal.
