Legalization of Marijuana?

[Brad69]

1. Legalize weed

2. Fed tax for treatment and enforcement

3. State tax for whatever states want

4. Enforcement will be as strict as Tobacco no tolerance no tax stamp you go to jail

5. Will eliminate a shadow economy and increase tax revenue that can be used to fight hard drugs and treatment for the addicts.

 

[bwframe]

Meh. Leave all the laws where they are.

Use the tax money generated from alcohol to start a long term "awareness" champagne to make it perceived as not so cool to partake of chemicals/drugs for recreation. Similar to what has been done to cigarettes.

 

[Jludo]

Meh. Leave all the laws where they are.

Use the tax money generated from alcohol to start a long term "awareness" champagne to make it perceived as not so cool to partake of chemicals/drugs for recreation. Similar to what has been done to cigarettes.

Keep arbitrary rules in place for which drugs are legal and which aren't? Since this is a thread about changing the laws you surely have an opinion which way the laws should move?

 

[BugI02]

1. Legalize weed

2. Fed tax for treatment and enforcement

3. State tax for whatever states want

4. Enforcement will be as strict as Tobacco no tolerance no tax stamp you go to jail

5. Will eliminate a shadow economy and increase tax revenue that can be used to fight hard drugs and treatment for the addicts.

Yeah, because it's not like the cartels will switch emphasis to heroin or meth or fentanyl or illegals (businesses they already have a hand in)

But I guess we can just eventually legalize those, too - eh? Would you go hunting with someone who's 'lifted'? If not, why would you want to share the road with them? In both cases they are responsible for a potentially deadly weapon

 

[Jludo]

1. Legalize weed

2. Fed tax for treatment and enforcement

3. State tax for whatever states want

4. Enforcement will be as strict as Tobacco no tolerance no tax stamp you go to jail

5. Will eliminate a shadow economy and increase tax revenue that can be used to fight hard drugs and treatment for the addicts.

Do you think the same strategy wouldn't work for harder drugs? Legalize, tax and use tax dollars plus cost savings to fund treatment/education?

What about for 'harder' drugs that don't cause addiction? There aren't many homeless folks looking for their next psilocybin fix.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

Meh. Leave all the laws where they are.

Use the tax money generated from alcohol to start a long term "awareness" champagne to make it perceived as not so cool to partake of chemicals/drugs for recreation. Similar to what has been done to cigarettes.

No you're exactly right. We the people should relay on the government to control most aspects of our lives. I mean hell, look at some of the people we hear about in the news. They clearly can't make good decisions so let's let the gov handle more and more, bc they rarely mesh things up.

I'll help you complete the list a little more

Weed: illegal, let's reshoot refer madness. Let's further see what we can do to separate the classes.

Cigarettes: if it has to be legal tax it to hell and back, add a 10 minute music number about this bad it is to the new refer madness we shoot.

Cigars? See above.

Grand papies pipe, forget about it. It's gone.

Soda: have you seen how much sugar is in that?! Taxed until people stop buying it.

Booze:. Liver disease gross. It's gets a music number too in refer madness

You know, instead of calling it refer madness I think it should be maybe "vice madness" or "overreach madness"

Cars with combustion engines: tax the makers till they switch to electric.

Gun: too many killings, let's ban the import and manufacturing of all guns. Repeal the 2nd amendment. Confiscate all guns.

Motorcycles: ban import and manufacturing, ticket anyone seen on or touching one.

Bicycles: could get hit by electric car, ban import and manufacturing.



I was nearing the end of what all I could think of off the top of my head and I decided to reread your post..

You want to use the tax money from a chemical/drug used for recreation to fund an ad campaign against using chemicals/drugs for recreation.

Did I read that right?

 

[jamil]

Meh. Leave all the laws where they are.

Use the tax money generated from alcohol to start a long term "awareness" champagne to make it perceived as not so cool to partake of chemicals/drugs for recreation. Similar to what has been done to cigarettes.

That’s a GREAT idea. And maybe we could wrap the long term “awareness champagne” in some catchy slogan. So, what should we call it? Hmmm. Oh. I know, let’s call it “just say no”. It’s gotta work I tell you. Because no one has ever tried THAT before.

 

[Jludo]

That does also bring up a good point, in an ideal world to taxing of a substance like cigarettes would pay to offset its increased cost to things like medicaid. At some point though you jack up taxes so high and the black market comes right back, defeating a lot of the purpose.

 

[Jludo]

That’s a GREAT idea. And maybe we could wrap the long term “awareness champagne” in some catchy slogan. So, what should we call it? Hmmm. Oh. I know, let’s call it “just say no”. It’s gotta work I tell you. Because no one has ever tried THAT before.

I doubt Gov is capable of such a campaign but I do think the dangers of alcohol could be better advertised. The issue is the cause is never taken up by moderates, you end up with an egg boiling in a pan rather than a nuanced holistic view given.

 

[jamil]

I doubt Gov is capable of such a campaign but I do think the dangers of alcohol could be better advertised. The issue is the cause is never taken up by moderates, you end up with an egg boiling in a pan rather than a nuanced holistic view given.

Nancy ****ing Reagan. So naive. Why can’t people just say no? Why can’t people be more like me?

“Awareness campaigns” or, I guess even “champagnes”, are a copout. People support them because it is literally the least people can do and still feel like they’re contributing to solutions. For example...Spread the word to end the r-word. Yeah? How about spread the word to kiss my ass? People think that making people “aware” makes them care. Okay. So maybe people stop using “retard” because it’s become socially unacceptable. But they’re still *******s who still disparage people, albeit with different words.

So drugs. The drunken lush Nancy ****ing Reagan takes up the cause to make doers of drugs “aware” of how it harms them. Did it work? Well, people mostly said, “just say kiss my ass, Nancy you drunk hypocrite.” And they do what they’re gonna do anyway. Awareness is a fake solution. It takes people doing the work, who really care about the work, to get the work done.

 

[epeery]

But in my opinion, the pros and cons are irrelevant because at the end of the day, the government should not be allowed to tell people what they can't put in their own bodies.

OP of this quote has been shootered, but I thought I'd ask a related question. I've always felt that the appropriate line for law making was the point where the law protects one person from the actions of another but doesn't just limit an individual's liberties. For example, you can legally get wasted on alcohol in your house, but if you then drive your car you're now a criminal. That makes sense to me.

So, do the pro-legalization folks support the same type of limits for MJ?

 

[Brad69]

Weed is all over and regardless of what we think it is becoming socially acceptable to a majority of the population.

1. The amount of MJ in the public without being taxed is not going to be reduced with enforcement or increasing penalties.

2. If it exist why should it not be taxed along the lines of Tobacco or booze?

3. The cartels can make more hard drugs that does not equal that everyone who uses MJ will become a drug addict hooked on meth.

4. Why should foreign growers and the support systems make all the money I would much rather see that money be above the board and in the USA.

5. Legalization of MJ will not have more people “high” they are already using it. The penalty for DWI would remain the same.
I would not want to be around anyone drunk, high, smoking bath salts or whatever driving a car or shooting a weapon.

Some INGO,s would be well served to watch one episode of Live PD and see how many people are using MJ around the country it’s probably way more that you would think.

 

[jamil]

OP of this quote has been shootered, but I thought I'd ask a related question. I've always felt that the appropriate line for law making was the point where the law protects one person from the actions of another but doesn't just limit an individual's liberties. For example, you can legally get wasted on alcohol in your house, but if you then drive your car you're now a criminal. That makes sense to me.

So, do the pro-legalization folks support the same type of limits for MJ?

I have mixed feelings about impairment laws. Not everyone who is impaired harms people. I suppose one could argue that putting them at higher risk is harm, but it’s not “real” harm until someone’s actually harmed. It’s also difficult to encode “impaired” into the law in a way that can be enforced consistently.

On the other hand, the consequences are dire. People die because people drive impaired. So I think I’m mostly at the place where I think it’s fine to have laws that place a reasonable restriction on behavior that objectively puts people in grave danger to others.

So the the the question becomes, does MJ do that? Well, I have plenty of experience being drunk, and I can definitely say that if you drink enough alcohol and then drive, you’re putting others in grave danger. I don’t have that experience with MJ to say that. I think that impairment laws should not be based on how much intoxicant is in one’s system. I don’t care about that. Are you capable of driving safely? That should be pretty universally applied no matter the situation.

So if you’re a 99 year old **** swerving all over the road, sideswiping parked cars, scattering pedestrians all over the place, but are dead sober, you’re impaired. Age is an impairment.

 

[Trigger Time]

Yeah they need to make people over 70 start having mandatory driving tests every 5 years. Hey ill be there one day too.
I watched a study they did where as people age their reflexes slow down so much they are basically like a drunk driver.
No one is saying you are unfit to drive at older ages, but you need to prove you are safe to drive. Driving is not a right.

Its the same with legaly prescribed drugs. Not everyone is impaired on them. Let doctors make that call.

Either way, on all aspects of life we need LESS government intrusion.
Government has legislated its way into way too many things.

Marijuana will be legalized. Its just a matter of when. Lets get ahead of the game and be ready for it. It is far less harmful than alcohol is.
I don't support government bans on anything. Let people make their own choices. I never supported smoking bans either and I don't smoke. Its taking away freedom. I hate how conditioned our society is becoming to being subjects again

 

[jamil]

Weed is all over and regardless of what we think it is becoming socially acceptable to a majority of the population.

1. The amount of MJ in the public without being taxed is not going to be reduced with enforcement or increasing penalties.

2. If it exist why should it not be taxed along the lines of Tobacco or booze?

3. The cartels can make more hard drugs that does not equal that everyone who uses MJ will become a drug addict hooked on meth.

4. Why should foreign growers and the support systems make all the money I would much rather see that money be above the board and in the USA.

5. Legalization of MJ will not have more people “high” they are already using it. The penalty for DWI would remain the same.
I would not want to be around anyone drunk, high, smoking bath salts or whatever driving a car or shooting a weapon.

Some INGO,s would be well served to watch one episode of Live PD and see how many people are using MJ around the country it’s probably way more that you would think.

Legalizing MJ would not make me choose to use it. Alcohol is legal and I choose not to use that. Legalizing MJ would undoubtedly cause more people to use it than otherwise. But I think most of the people who don’t use it now, wouldn’t use it if it were legal.

 

[Jludo]

I have mixed feelings about impairment laws. Not everyone who is impaired harms people. I suppose one could argue that putting them at higher risk is harm, but it’s not “real” harm until someone’s actually harmed. It’s also difficult to encode “impaired” into the law in a way that can be enforced consistently.

On the other hand, the consequences are dire. People die because people drive impaired. So I think I’m mostly at the place where I think it’s fine to have laws that place a reasonable restriction on behavior that objectively puts people in grave danger to others.

So the the the question becomes, does MJ do that? Well, I have plenty of experience being drunk, and I can definitely say that if you drink enough alcohol and then drive, you’re putting others in grave danger. I don’t have that experience with MJ to say that. I think that impairment laws should not be based on how much intoxicant is in one’s system. I don’t care about that. Are you capable of driving safely? That should be pretty universally applied no matter the situation.

So if you’re a 99 year old **** swerving all over the road, sideswiping parked cars, scattering pedestrians all over the place, but are dead sober, you’re impaired. Age is an impairment.

I feel similarly, the act of wreckless driving should be the crime, be it due to drug related impairment, watching a movie on your phone, falling asleep behind the wheel. I feel safer letting a wake and bake full time Lyft driver who's focused on the road drive me around Denver than a driver messing with their phone.

 

[Trigger Time]

Legalizing MJ would not make me choose to use it. Alcohol is legal and I choose not to use that. Legalizing MJ would undoubtedly cause more people to use it than otherwise. But I think most of the people who don’t use it now, wouldn’t use it if it were legal.

Yep. I can go get blitzed on alcohol right now but I choose not to. Hell lets be honest, weed is just as easy to get now as alcohol is. I DO NOT use marijuana but I could easily get it probably within a day if I wanted to look for some. Its all over the place. Hell a vietnam veteran neighbor of mine freely admits to using it for ptsd. Im sure it helps him. Its common. Among older folks and younger folks. It will be legalized. People need to find ways to bennefit from it not fight it.
Tax revenue cha ching!

 

[bwframe]

Why do we need to alter our mental status with chemicals at all? How healthy is any of it in the long term?

Peer pressure? Commercials? "Cool guys" in the movies and on TV. Youths trying to be "adults?"

 

[rkwhyte2]

My spouse has cancer and was recently out in Cali visiting family. She ate a gummy bear infused with 10mg of THC. It took away some of the pain and also caused her to be hungry. All pluses in my book. It needs to be at the very least legal for medical uses and really just make it legal for recreation. I'm with TT the government needs to step back and let us be.

 

[Ziggidy]

Yeah they need to make people over 70 start having mandatory driving tests every 5 years. Hey ill be there one day too.
I watched a study they did where as people age their reflexes slow down so much they are basically like a drunk driver.
No one is saying you are unfit to drive at older ages, but you need to prove you are safe to drive. Driving is not a right.

Know plenty of young and middle aged drivers who may be somewhat quicker with their reflexes but I also know that many many many are distracted by phones, radio, smoking, partying and such while they drive.

I would gladly drive with a 75 year person over a 16 year old kid.