More Pot Talk

[KevinWestern]

It would be people that are two time losers, who would know the consequences of thier action and would choose to continue thier way into being a dreg on society. Such person in society will be a drag no matter where they are. I'd rather they be in a nice agrarian setting laboring under the sun and cleaning thier system out of the drugs.

These prisons would be minimal security and minimal cost, after all these people are probably not really that violent. If they escape, you find em, and dump em back in the farm.

I mean, don't get me wrong I don't mind putting murderers, rapists, habitual burglars/extortionists, and other dangerous people behind bars.

However, at least when it comes to pot (a plant you can't overdose on, and is relatively non-addictive), I think adults aught to have the right to choose to smoke it in appropriate situations (ie in the privacy of home, or at a marijuana bar, etc).

To say they could face jail-time because of it just seems opposite of what my definition of a free society would be. Again, agree to disagree.

.

 

[KevinWestern]

Even with all the taxes, it would still probably be cheaper as well. The "tax" that is created when something is illegal is pretty damn big in most cases.

Definitely agree. The prices would go down due to the fact that more people will be growing marijuana (ie competition), marijuana will be closer to the customer, you no longer will have to pay a premium for an illegal worker (ie a worker might take $10/hr to work legally, but asks for $14/hr when he's risking jail-time, death, etc), and a slew of other factors.

.

 

[whitehall]

The federal government spends about 60 million per year on anti-tobacco propaganda campaigns not to mention the resources of state and local governments to enforce anti-smoking laws and fund squads of police dedicated to curb the smuggling of cigarettes from state to state. Yet the marijuana fans want to legalize another headache. It doesn't make any sense from a fiscal viewpoint.

 

[KevinWestern]

The federal government spends about 60 million per year on anti-tobacco propaganda campaigns not to mention the resources of state and local governments to enforce anti-smoking laws and fund squads of police dedicated to curb the smuggling of cigarettes from state to state. Yet the marijuana fans want to legalize another headache. It doesn't make any sense from a fiscal viewpoint.

First of all, are you talking about the $54 million-dollar one time campaign that occurred in 2012? That propaganda spend level didn’t occur in previous years and I don’t believe it’s occurring in 2013.

Secondly, even if the gov’t did spend $54 million/yr, the tax revenue they receive from tobacco is in the BILLIONS (a two second google search will verify), and we still haven’t even accounted for all of the police, court, FDA, and legal resources (directly related to policing pot) which also suck up hundreds of millions of dollars consistently every year.

So to break it down, we have a $54/million spend vs. billions in tax revenue + hundreds of millions of dollars of police/court/legal resources freed up.

Whitehall, hate to say it but you have no argument.

Maybe those potheads aren't so dumb after all
.

 

[Katzndogz]

You have a delusion that justifies legalizing marijuana and makes it beneficial if everything you think would happen works out just the way you think it should. Of course it wouldn't. The illegal sellers would still sell illegally. They would just undercut the legal market. Or, throw pot in as a freebie if they buy something more deadly and more powerful. You absolutely do not understand how creative a criminal mind is. Just because YOU can't think of a way to turn legalization into a criminal advantage doesn't mean that no one can. You have a business model for the cartels, it's not their business model. It 's just what you think it should be.

Katz, come on. Undercut the legal market? Kind of like how black-market alcohol dealers still supply beer and wine to Chicago? Don't mean to be condescending, just pointing out that it's a ridiculous notion.

Why would someone buy unregulated, costly marijuana that needs to be shipped thousands of miles from Mexico, and have to deal with some shady criminal drug dealer when they could instead walk to their local store and pick up a legal and more consistent and cleaner product?

Not going to happen, Katz. You have to think this through.

Beer and wine takes a lot of equipment and is much harder to transport. I can't really believe that you think the infrastructure already in place for drug distribution would be dismantled by contrite cartels who will just disappear.

Why would someone buy unregulated costly marijuana? Why do they buy costly and unregulated counterfeit prescription drugs? You know they do. The shady criminal drug dealer isn't shady or criminal to their customers. They are friends. When you're short, the local store won't give you credit like your friendly neighborhood dealer will. There is a personal relationship shady criminal dealers build up with their customers. They are trusted. The dealers understand. Not only that, but they give bonuses for new customers. Your local store won't do that. If you bring in a new customer, the friendly dealer might give you drugs or even money!

.

 

[KevinWestern]

Beer and wine takes a lot of equipment and is much harder to transport. I can't really believe that you think the infrastructure already in place for drug distribution would be dismantled by contrite cartels who will just disappear.

I’m sure the infrastructure won’t disappear, however what happens is that it will be converted to a LEGAL supply chain. And that means that people will no longer be getting murdered in mass numbers, and street thugs won’t be selling it on neighborhood corners.

Why would someone buy unregulated costly marijuana? Why do they buy costly and unregulated counterfeit prescription drugs? You know they do.

People buy illegal prescription drugs (often from Canada) because the markups are so high on the patents and the only way to obtain them (sometimes) are via a doctor. There’s no patent on pot, and if the prescription drugs weren’t prescription (and could be purchased at a store) people would buy them legally. Can't compare the two, as they're quite different.

The shady criminal drug dealer isn't shady or criminal to their customers. They are friends. When you're short, the local store won't give you credit like your friendly neighborhood dealer will. There is a personal relationship shady criminal dealers build up with their customers. They are trusted. The dealers understand. Not only that, but they give bonuses for new customers. Your local store won't do that. If you bring in a new customer, the friendly dealer might give you drugs or even money!

Lol, come on Katz this is getting ridiculous. If I want a beer, I go to the freaking store and buy one using my credit card. It's easy, legal, fast, safe, and I have total control of what product I get and when I get it.

Why on earth would I call up a criminal, wait like 5 hours or more (lol), then meet him somewhere so that he could give me a product that may or may not be cold, all while on the lookout for police.

Why on earth would I do that?!

.

 

[martybegan]

It would be people that are two time losers, who would know the consequences of thier action and would choose to continue thier way into being a dreg on society. Such person in society will be a drag no matter where they are. I'd rather they be in a nice agrarian setting laboring under the sun and cleaning thier system out of the drugs.

These prisons would be minimal security and minimal cost, after all these people are probably not really that violent. If they escape, you find em, and dump em back in the farm.

I mean, don't get me wrong I don't mind putting murderers, rapists, habitual burglars/extortionists, and other dangerous people behind bars.

However, at least when it comes to pot (a plant you can't overdose on, and is relatively non-addictive), I think adults aught to have the right to choose to smoke it in appropriate situations (ie in the privacy of home, or at a marijuana bar, etc).

To say they could face jail-time because of it just seems opposite of what my definition of a free society would be. Again, agree to disagree.

.

They would be facing jail time anyway because they committed another crime. I wouldnt have random checks on people who have commited a crime while on drugs once, I would just increase the jail time due to the drugs. The conviction would have to be for the actual crime committed, burglary, assault, robbery, etc. The drugs in the system would just come into play in the sentencing.

 

[eots]

You have a delusion that justifies legalizing marijuana and makes it beneficial if everything you think would happen works out just the way you think it should. Of course it wouldn't. The illegal sellers would still sell illegally. They would just undercut the legal market. Or, throw pot in as a freebie if they buy something more deadly and more powerful. You absolutely do not understand how creative a criminal mind is. Just because YOU can't think of a way to turn legalization into a criminal advantage doesn't mean that no one can. You have a business model for the cartels, it's not their business model. It 's just what you think it should be.

Katz, come on. Undercut the legal market? Kind of like how black-market alcohol dealers still supply beer and wine to Chicago? Don't mean to be condescending, just pointing out that it's a ridiculous notion.

Why would someone buy unregulated, costly marijuana that needs to be shipped thousands of miles from Mexico, and have to deal with some shady criminal drug dealer when they could instead walk to their local store and pick up a legal and more consistent and cleaner product?

Not going to happen, Katz. You have to think this through.

Beer and wine takes a lot of equipment and is much harder to transport. I can't really believe that you think the infrastructure already in place for drug distribution would be dismantled by contrite cartels who will just disappear.

Why would someone buy unregulated costly marijuana? Why do they buy costly and unregulated counterfeit prescription drugs? You know they do. The shady criminal drug dealer isn't shady or criminal to their customers. They are friends. When you're short, the local store won't give you credit like your friendly neighborhood dealer will. There is a personal relationship shady criminal dealers build up with their customers. They are trusted. The dealers understand. Not only that, but they give bonuses for new customers. Your local store won't do that. If you bring in a new customer, the friendly dealer might give you drugs or even money!

.

I can get a pound to a pound and half of top quality bud from a single plant...if it was legal to grow for personal use anyone could soon learn to grow all the weed they would ever need

 

[Katzndogz]

Katz, come on. Undercut the legal market? Kind of like how black-market alcohol dealers still supply beer and wine to Chicago? Don't mean to be condescending, just pointing out that it's a ridiculous notion.

Why would someone buy unregulated, costly marijuana that needs to be shipped thousands of miles from Mexico, and have to deal with some shady criminal drug dealer when they could instead walk to their local store and pick up a legal and more consistent and cleaner product?

Not going to happen, Katz. You have to think this through.

Beer and wine takes a lot of equipment and is much harder to transport. I can't really believe that you think the infrastructure already in place for drug distribution would be dismantled by contrite cartels who will just disappear.

Why would someone buy unregulated costly marijuana? Why do they buy costly and unregulated counterfeit prescription drugs? You know they do. The shady criminal drug dealer isn't shady or criminal to their customers. They are friends. When you're short, the local store won't give you credit like your friendly neighborhood dealer will. There is a personal relationship shady criminal dealers build up with their customers. They are trusted. The dealers understand. Not only that, but they give bonuses for new customers. Your local store won't do that. If you bring in a new customer, the friendly dealer might give you drugs or even money!

.

I can get a pound to a pound and half of top quality bud from a single plant...if it was legal to grow for personal use anyone could soon learn to grow all the weed they would ever need

Then you would find yourself in the same position as Mr. Wickard found himself in when he grew his own wheat.

Wickard v. Filburn ? Case Brief Summary

1.Yes. Congress can regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed in interstate commerce.
2.Yes. Congress can regulate trivial local, intrastate activities that have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce via the commerce power, even if the effect is indirect.

The wheat marketing quota and attendant penalty provisions of the AAA, even when applied to wheat not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm, are within the commerce power of Congress. The power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to regulate commodity prices and practices affecting them.

The effect of the AAA is to restrict the amount of wheat which may be produced for market and the extent to which one may avoid resorting to the market by producing for his own needs. That the production of wheat for consumption on the farm may be trivial in some cases is not enough to remove the grower from the scope of federal regulation where the aggregate effect of such behavior by many others is far from trivial.

Wheat grown for home consumption is a factor with great volume and variability and it would have a substantial influence on price conditions. When prices are high the wheat may flow into the market and check price increases. Furthermore wheat grown for personal consumption supplies the need of the grower who would otherwise purchase wheat in the open market.

You understand how it would be applied to marijuana. When you grow your own marijuana you are not buying it. Even if the amount was trivial, in the aggregate (if everyone grew their own pot) it would have a substantial effect on the purchase price on the open market.

You have become a lawbreaker.

 

[Katzndogz]

Beer and wine takes a lot of equipment and is much harder to transport. I can't really believe that you think the infrastructure already in place for drug distribution would be dismantled by contrite cartels who will just disappear.

I’m sure the infrastructure won’t disappear, however what happens is that it will be converted to a LEGAL supply chain. And that means that people will no longer be getting murdered in mass numbers, and street thugs won’t be selling it on neighborhood corners.

Why would someone buy unregulated costly marijuana? Why do they buy costly and unregulated counterfeit prescription drugs? You know they do.

People buy illegal prescription drugs (often from Canada) because the markups are so high on the patents and the only way to obtain them (sometimes) are via a doctor. There’s no patent on pot, and if the prescription drugs weren’t prescription (and could be purchased at a store) people would buy them legally. Can't compare the two, as they're quite different.

The shady criminal drug dealer isn't shady or criminal to their customers. They are friends. When you're short, the local store won't give you credit like your friendly neighborhood dealer will. There is a personal relationship shady criminal dealers build up with their customers. They are trusted. The dealers understand. Not only that, but they give bonuses for new customers. Your local store won't do that. If you bring in a new customer, the friendly dealer might give you drugs or even money!

Lol, come on Katz this is getting ridiculous. If I want a beer, I go to the freaking store and buy one using my credit card. It's easy, legal, fast, safe, and I have total control of what product I get and when I get it.

Why on earth would I call up a criminal, wait like 5 hours or more (lol), then meet him somewhere so that he could give me a product that may or may not be cold, all while on the lookout for police.

Why on earth would I do that?!

.

You would rather buy it from your friend who would extend you credit when you don't have the money. Customer loyalty.

You just don't know anything about criminals so you take your law abiding personality and project it onto criminals.

 

[eots]

Beer and wine takes a lot of equipment and is much harder to transport. I can't really believe that you think the infrastructure already in place for drug distribution would be dismantled by contrite cartels who will just disappear.

Why would someone buy unregulated costly marijuana? Why do they buy costly and unregulated counterfeit prescription drugs? You know they do. The shady criminal drug dealer isn't shady or criminal to their customers. They are friends. When you're short, the local store won't give you credit like your friendly neighborhood dealer will. There is a personal relationship shady criminal dealers build up with their customers. They are trusted. The dealers understand. Not only that, but they give bonuses for new customers. Your local store won't do that. If you bring in a new customer, the friendly dealer might give you drugs or even money!

.

I can get a pound to a pound and half of top quality bud from a single plant...if it was legal to grow for personal use anyone could soon learn to grow all the weed they would ever need

Then you would find yourself in the same position as Mr. Wickard found himself in when he grew his own wheat.

Wickard v. Filburn ? Case Brief Summary

1.Yes. Congress can regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed in interstate commerce.
2.Yes. Congress can regulate trivial local, intrastate activities that have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce via the commerce power, even if the effect is indirect.

The wheat marketing quota and attendant penalty provisions of the AAA, even when applied to wheat not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm, are within the commerce power of Congress. The power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to regulate commodity prices and practices affecting them.

The effect of the AAA is to restrict the amount of wheat which may be produced for market and the extent to which one may avoid resorting to the market by producing for his own needs. That the production of wheat for consumption on the farm may be trivial in some cases is not enough to remove the grower from the scope of federal regulation where the aggregate effect of such behavior by many others is far from trivial.

Wheat grown for home consumption is a factor with great volume and variability and it would have a substantial influence on price conditions. When prices are high the wheat may flow into the market and check price increases. Furthermore wheat grown for personal consumption supplies the need of the grower who would otherwise purchase wheat in the open market.

You understand how it would be applied to marijuana. When you grow your own marijuana you are not buying it. Even if the amount was trivial, in the aggregate (if everyone grew their own pot) it would have a substantial effect on the purchase price on the open market.

You have become a lawbreaker.

So the government would become the new cartel ?

 

[KevinWestern]

You would rather buy it from your friend who would extend you credit when you don't have the money. Customer loyalty.

You just don't know anything about criminals so you take your law abiding personality and project it onto criminals.

Again, where are all the bootleggers who extend their (loyal) friends credit for booze?

Prohibition lasted for 10 years and the cartels (the mob) built up a pretty impressive infrastructure network. How come those networks broke down, and why am I to believe that the marijuana market should behave differently?



.

 

[Katzndogz]

I can get a pound to a pound and half of top quality bud from a single plant...if it was legal to grow for personal use anyone could soon learn to grow all the weed they would ever need

Then you would find yourself in the same position as Mr. Wickard found himself in when he grew his own wheat.

Wickard v. Filburn ? Case Brief Summary

1.Yes. Congress can regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed in interstate commerce.
2.Yes. Congress can regulate trivial local, intrastate activities that have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce via the commerce power, even if the effect is indirect.

The wheat marketing quota and attendant penalty provisions of the AAA, even when applied to wheat not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm, are within the commerce power of Congress. The power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to regulate commodity prices and practices affecting them.

The effect of the AAA is to restrict the amount of wheat which may be produced for market and the extent to which one may avoid resorting to the market by producing for his own needs. That the production of wheat for consumption on the farm may be trivial in some cases is not enough to remove the grower from the scope of federal regulation where the aggregate effect of such behavior by many others is far from trivial.

Wheat grown for home consumption is a factor with great volume and variability and it would have a substantial influence on price conditions. When prices are high the wheat may flow into the market and check price increases. Furthermore wheat grown for personal consumption supplies the need of the grower who would otherwise purchase wheat in the open market.

You understand how it would be applied to marijuana. When you grow your own marijuana you are not buying it. Even if the amount was trivial, in the aggregate (if everyone grew their own pot) it would have a substantial effect on the purchase price on the open market.

You have become a lawbreaker.

So the government would become the new cartel ?

Essentially, yes. The government as a purveyor of drugs would just become the newest cartel on the block. To think that the existing cartels would not protect their market share is extremely optimistic. At the very least, you might find the same kind of rackets that appeared after prohibition where bars and stores were forced to sell the product of a particular organized crime network.

 

[eots]

Then you would find yourself in the same position as Mr. Wickard found himself in when he grew his own wheat.

Wickard v. Filburn ? Case Brief Summary

1.Yes. Congress can regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed in interstate commerce.
2.Yes. Congress can regulate trivial local, intrastate activities that have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce via the commerce power, even if the effect is indirect.

The wheat marketing quota and attendant penalty provisions of the AAA, even when applied to wheat not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm, are within the commerce power of Congress. The power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to regulate commodity prices and practices affecting them.

The effect of the AAA is to restrict the amount of wheat which may be produced for market and the extent to which one may avoid resorting to the market by producing for his own needs. That the production of wheat for consumption on the farm may be trivial in some cases is not enough to remove the grower from the scope of federal regulation where the aggregate effect of such behavior by many others is far from trivial.

Wheat grown for home consumption is a factor with great volume and variability and it would have a substantial influence on price conditions. When prices are high the wheat may flow into the market and check price increases. Furthermore wheat grown for personal consumption supplies the need of the grower who would otherwise purchase wheat in the open market.

You understand how it would be applied to marijuana. When you grow your own marijuana you are not buying it. Even if the amount was trivial, in the aggregate (if everyone grew their own pot) it would have a substantial effect on the purchase price on the open market.

You have become a lawbreaker.

So the government would become the new cartel ?

Essentially, yes. The government as a purveyor of drugs would just become the newest cartel on the block. To think that the existing cartels would not protect their market share is extremely optimistic. At the very least, you might find the same kind of rackets that appeared after prohibition where bars and stores were forced to sell the product of a particular organized crime network.

lol...the government and cartels are protecting their market by keeping it illegal...big money for courts, lawyers ,law enforcement, prisons..big money for Mexican pot growers ..otherwise it would be no different than growing tomatoes in your yard...I do not see any Mexican cartels trying to protect their cut of the tomato market

 

[Katzndogz]

You would rather buy it from your friend who would extend you credit when you don't have the money. Customer loyalty.

You just don't know anything about criminals so you take your law abiding personality and project it onto criminals.

Again, where are all the bootleggers who extend their (loyal) friends credit for booze?

Prohibition lasted for 10 years and the cartels (the mob) built up a pretty impressive infrastructure network. How come those networks broke down, and why am I to believe that the marijuana market should behave differently?



.

Okay, you might be right, get back in 50 years and tell us how it worked out. Why do we still have organized crime if prohibition ended it? The networks didn't break down. They were torn down by law enforcement that wasn't hampered by "civil rights" and Constitutional protections. The bodies were dumped in rivers and buried in deserts. Those were the police! After they were torn down, they rebuilt, bigger and better.

Then of course, much of the criminal infrastructure built during prohibition just shifted over to drugs, prostitution, gambling and protection. That's why we still have organized crime networks today. If anything, there are more of them and they have much more power than they did.

Then too, recognize that prohibition wasn't ended by repealing the law. Federal jurisdiction was ended but municipalities were still free to enforce all prohibition laws and many of them did. Some of them still do. Just like municipalities today (upheld by the California supreme court) are free to completely ban marijuana sales within that jurisdiction.

Here is the sad truth about prohibition. The reason why prohibition was instituted because of fears that alcohol would contribute to the breakdown of the family, destitute mothers and children of alcoholics, alcohol consumption at younger and younger ages, increased homelessness, increased disease and illness, increased accidental death. There was a whole list of dangers.

They all happened. Everything the prohibitionists warned about actually happened. So what do we do? Prohibition is ended. Since prohibition ended, we have had laws, upon laws, upon laws slowly reinstituting the affectations of prohibition and spending billions on helping the victims of alcoholics, those destitute mothers and children, deaths by drunk drivers. Yes you can drink, just not in public, can't drink and get behind the wheel of a car, you can get your kids taken away, lose your job, Go to jail, lose your driver's license, have your car impounded. It's not done yet.

Maybe we should stop the war on alcohol while we're at it.

 

[eots]

You would rather buy it from your friend who would extend you credit when you don't have the money. Customer loyalty.

You just don't know anything about criminals so you take your law abiding personality and project it onto criminals.

Again, where are all the bootleggers who extend their (loyal) friends credit for booze?

Prohibition lasted for 10 years and the cartels (the mob) built up a pretty impressive infrastructure network. How come those networks broke down, and why am I to believe that the marijuana market should behave differently?



.

Okay, you might be right, get back in 50 years and tell us how it worked out. Why do we still have organized crime if prohibition ended it? The networks didn't break down. They were torn down by law enforcement that wasn't hampered by "civil rights" and Constitutional protections. The bodies were dumped in rivers and buried in deserts. Those were the police! After they were torn down, they rebuilt, bigger and better.

Then of course, much of the criminal infrastructure built during prohibition just shifted over to drugs, prostitution, gambling and protection. That's why we still have organized crime networks today. If anything, there are more of them and they have much more power than they did.

Then too, recognize that prohibition wasn't ended by repealing the law. Federal jurisdiction was ended but municipalities were still free to enforce all prohibition laws and many of them did. Some of them still do. Just like municipalities today (upheld by the California supreme court) are free to completely ban marijuana sales within that jurisdiction.

Here is the sad truth about prohibition. The reason why prohibition was instituted because of fears that alcohol would contribute to the breakdown of the family, destitute mothers and children of alcoholics, alcohol consumption at younger and younger ages, increased homelessness, increased disease and illness, increased accidental death. There was a whole list of dangers.

They all happened. Everything the prohibitionists warned about actually happened. So what do we do? Prohibition is ended. Since prohibition ended, we have had laws, upon laws, upon laws slowly reinstituting the affectations of prohibition and spending billions on helping the victims of alcoholics, those destitute mothers and children, deaths by drunk drivers. Yes you can drink, just not in public, can't drink and get behind the wheel of a car, you can get your kids taken away, lose your job, Go to jail, lose your driver's license, have your car impounded. It's not done yet.

Maybe we should stop the war on alcohol while we're at it.

those are not laws against alcohol they are laws regarding putting others in imminent risk...like speeding or reckless driving...prohibition did not stop anything it made it worse that simple

 

[KevinWestern]

Okay, you might be right, get back in 50 years and tell us how it worked out. Why do we still have organized crime if prohibition ended it? The networks didn't break down. They were torn down by law enforcement that wasn't hampered by "civil rights" and Constitutional protections. The bodies were dumped in rivers and buried in deserts. Those were the police! After they were torn down, they rebuilt, bigger and better.

Then of course, much of the criminal infrastructure built during prohibition just shifted over to drugs, prostitution, gambling and protection. That's why we still have organized crime networks today. If anything, there are more of them and they have much more power than they did.

Then too, recognize that prohibition wasn't ended by repealing the law. Federal jurisdiction was ended but municipalities were still free to enforce all prohibition laws and many of them did. Some of them still do. Just like municipalities today (upheld by the California supreme court) are free to completely ban marijuana sales within that jurisdiction.

Here is the sad truth about prohibition. The reason why prohibition was instituted because of fears that alcohol would contribute to the breakdown of the family, destitute mothers and children of alcoholics, alcohol consumption at younger and younger ages, increased homelessness, increased disease and illness, increased accidental death. There was a whole list of dangers.

They all happened. Everything the prohibitionists warned about actually happened. So what do we do? Prohibition is ended. Since prohibition ended, we have had laws, upon laws, upon laws slowly reinstituting the affectations of prohibition and spending billions on helping the victims of alcoholics, those destitute mothers and children, deaths by drunk drivers. Yes you can drink, just not in public, can't drink and get behind the wheel of a car, you can get your kids taken away, lose your job, Go to jail, lose your driver's license, have your car impounded. It's not done yet.

Maybe we should stop the war on alcohol while we're at it.

The fact of the matter is that prohibition simply does not work; people will still drink, and people will still smoke.

So ultimately we - as a society - must choose whether or not we want violent channels run by criminals in the underground delivering alcohol/marijuana to us (and spend billions policing it), or would we rather have a legal and non-violent supply chain delivering us those drugs (and tax it and not have to worry about policing it from a law enforcement perspective).

That's the question.

.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You have a delusion that justifies legalizing marijuana and makes it beneficial if everything you think would happen works out just the way you think it should. Of course it wouldn't. The illegal sellers would still sell illegally. They would just undercut the legal market. Or, throw pot in as a freebie if they buy something more deadly and more powerful. You absolutely do not understand how creative a criminal mind is. Just because YOU can't think of a way to turn legalization into a criminal advantage doesn't mean that no one can. You have a business model for the cartels, it's not their business model. It 's just what you think it should be.

Katz, come on. Undercut the legal market? Kind of like how black-market alcohol dealers still supply beer and wine to Chicago? Don't mean to be condescending, just pointing out that it's a ridiculous notion.

Why would someone buy unregulated, costly marijuana that needs to be shipped thousands of miles from Mexico, and have to deal with some shady criminal drug dealer when they could instead walk to their local store and pick up a legal and more consistent and cleaner product?

Not going to happen, Katz. You have to think this through.

Beer and wine takes a lot of equipment and is much harder to transport. I can't really believe that you think the infrastructure already in place for drug distribution would be dismantled by contrite cartels who will just disappear.

Why would someone buy unregulated costly marijuana? Why do they buy costly and unregulated counterfeit prescription drugs? You know they do. The shady criminal drug dealer isn't shady or criminal to their customers. They are friends. When you're short, the local store won't give you credit like your friendly neighborhood dealer will. There is a personal relationship shady criminal dealers build up with their customers. They are trusted. The dealers understand. Not only that, but they give bonuses for new customers. Your local store won't do that. If you bring in a new customer, the friendly dealer might give you drugs or even money!

.

...what is your definition of the bonuses they give?.....

 

[squeeze berry]

Death penalty for anyone who commits a crime with drugs in their system.

jaywalking included?

 

[SayMyName]

Marijuana should be legal across the board. Only profiteers in government and industry benefit from it remaining illegal.