So should we not treat alcoholics either, or rather any type of degenerative addiction? How about obese people who just binge eat? That just seems absurd and unhuman. And I'm not even sure how someone who is "abusing" mar1juana would bankrupt our health care system. It has less health care costs associated with than say heavy alcohol use. You're singling out mar1juana when you could single out tons of other deviances. Its addressed the same why someone coming to work drunk is addressed. No one has a breathalizer at work waiting for the drunk guy who might walk in. There's a level of reasonability to our society that you aren't acknowledging. And yes random drug testing exists now in the workplace as is and an employer could invoke that at anytime in the future anyway. Fine, order the guy to piss in a cup if you suspect something, you can do that now anyway.
I have reservations about keeping alcohol legal, but from a practical standpoint, prohibition does not work, so my reservations are truly moot. Personally, I would set the profit levels by statute and tax it heavily. No advertising allowed, no marketing, nothing that increases demand. Revenues HAVE to factor in this, at least revenues to the government. If you are ignoring tax revenue, you are ignoring a huge reason that recreational pharmaceuticals should be regulated. Tax revenues can help to offset the social costs inherent in drug use. Illegal mar1juana would never "die out" completely, just as illegal alcohol hasn't. However, the people growing pot for themselves would probably comprise about the same percentage of people who brew their own beer or distill their own spirits (moonshine). That number is minuscule, most people will simply buy it from the store once it is legal. The black market thrives because of the legal status of drugs. Once the legal status changes, the black market goes away. Exactly. Importing should be legal, but I agree with you about setting huge penalties for providing drugs to minors (not USE by minors, but supplying them). Bad idea. We don't take away healthcare for tobacco smokers or alcohol drinkers and those drugs are far more harmful to one's health than mar1juana. I would put some of it to drug abuse education programs (not scare tactics about mar1juana, but honest education) and some of it towards prescription drugs for the elderly. Exactly. If you are talking about firing for on-the-job consumption, I agree. If you are talking about giving employers the ability to fire if they learn that a worker smokes, then I strongly disagree. We don't allow employers to fire for off-hours drinking as long as it doesn't impact the workplace, why would it be any different for mar1juana?
Why not define it as someone who smokes to the point that their usage negatively impacts their lives in the form of grades in school, performance at work, or ability to maintain normal relationships? Those metrics are far more telling than how often one uses a substance. Many of those people see their insurance rates rise, as it should be, but taking away healthcare coverage for these personal choices seems way too harsh. First of all, you pulled from Wikipedia, which I could edit today to say "mar1juana causes the user to immediately become smarter than most Mensa members," so your source is a little suspect. However, here are some snippets you may have glossed over in your reading... Correlation does not equal causation. There is a LOT of study that needs to be done on mar1juana, study that is not possible with a policy of prohibition. IOW, the "Gateway Theory" has not been demonstrated at all. Personally, I would rather have complete information based on scientific study and fact. We can get that information, but we will have to regulate the market and then study the effects in order for that information to have any validity.
That is the reason to tax it and charge higher insurance rates for smokers, just like the insurers do for tobacco. You can't take away people's healthcare for their choice of intoxicants. Urinalysis shows that the person has used, but you can measure impairment with a blood test. From what I understand, there is also a breathalyzer for pot, too. As long as they are getting "blazed as hell" at home without plans to get behind the wheel of a car, why should we care? The system of regulation we should be following is one that emphasizes harm reduction. A prohibitionist approach exacerbates the harms and creates whole new harms to society. We need to stop pouring gasoline on the fire and start mitigating the harms that drug use and abuse has on our society.
The whole argument of percentage of people who would grow it would be around the same as the those who brew their own beer is ridiculous. Legalizing pot is not going to get you a huge influx of people that will start smoking casually or regularly. The current law does not stop a majority of people that want to try it from taking a few puffs from a joint being passed around. Legalizing is really only benefiting current users. You honestly think there are so many people waiting on the sidelines to try pot but are scared to because it is illegal? No way. That being said, a majority of the smokers I have known have all expressed an interest in growing their own stuff. They don't because it is much easier to get caught with and would rather buy from dealers. You legalize it, and they will grow. Guaranteed. It would be much cheaper, they wouldn't have to pay taxes, and you don't lose much quality, if at all. Casual smokers tend to know a pothead or two, so what's to stop them from getting it from a friend that grows? I'm all for legalization, but you have to understand that this is not a substance that the government could effectively regulate and tax in order to bring in the revenues you think they could.
You are severely underestimating the laziness of most potheads. while a majority of the smokers you know may have expressed an interest in growing, for the most part, they will not put forth the effort to grow the kind of smoke you would be able to purchase at a store. Ditchweed is easy enough to grow, you just need some seeds and a plot of land in a warmish climate. The kind of smoke that would be sold in stores, and the kind that most would choose to go purchase, is the weed that requires constant attention to detail, sexing at the appropriate time, the right mix of nutrients, the right kind of lights, and loads of TIME. The people that put forth that kind of effort to grow will not be giving their wares to other smokers and, once the market price has been set, would be crazy to supply a black market when they could simply get licensed and sell legitimately. I agree that there will be people who will grow their own, but those people will be a tiny percentage of users, just like in Holland.
So if Alcohol is already bad, which i agree it can be more dangerous than weed. (as far as driving). So why add weed onto it? why. why make another drug legal.
You are severely underestimating how much potheads love their weed. And I would stop citing Holland. It is still illegal by law there, and punishable by fine. It's just a country that practices a non-enforcement policy which is different than what you are proposing.
I would pose the same question to you. Before we banned drugs, it was estimated that 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs. In 1972, when Nixon coined the phrase "War on Drugs," it was estimated that 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs. Today, after a trillion dollars spent and countless lives lost or ruined, 1.3% of the population is addicted to drugs. Our drug policy has not had an impact on the number of addicts in this country, the policy has simply made things worse.
No, I haven't. You have severely overestimated the lengths to which they will go when pot is available in a store. I cite Holland because their policy of tolerance of mar1juana is as close to what I am proposing as exists in the developed world. It is not the best example of what I would like to see, but it is the only example that exists.
Considering driving to their dealers house is the same effort it would take to buy from a store and the fact that they all know exactly what it entails to grow mar1juana, I haven't. Fine, but that still doesn't help your argument against mine. Citing Holland as an example of what percentage of people will grow doesn't hold up, when the country still recognizes the drug as illegal and has laws to punish people for it.
None of them know what it entails to grow mar1juana, or if they did, they wouldn't begin to consider it. Growing good mar1juana is a 12 hour per day job for a decent sized grow. By far the vast majority of smokers would simply go to the store, which is likely to be closer than their dealers' house is now. Illegal, but tolerated. People are not arrested in Holland for pot, even growers.
Not sure what you mean by "decent sized grow", but growing enough high quality ganja for personal use doesn't take anywhere near a 12 hours/day commitment.
Now, I'll agree that Weed may not be addicting. But Coke and Heroin are. If we made them legal, you would have to admit, a few more people might try it some day. And then get addicted to it. And the start even more crime. Think what you want on the 1.3% stuff. I had a lot of friend in high school that never drink because it was against the law, and they waited till they were 21. Whose to say that people would do more drugs if they were legal? I think more people would try legalized drugs.
The thing is, JLEW1818, when people make claims like the ones you are making, it is usally best to back them up with a little thing called evidence. Otherwise you're just spewing unfiltered opinion. And let me tell you, nobody gives two ****s about your opinion. Just saying...
