Regulating Cannabis Sales Could Yield Over $17 Billion In Annual Savings And Revenue

[MikeK]

"Let's encourage bad behavior because we can make money off it!"

When will we learn?

Please provide us with a specific description of the "bad behavior" you're talking about. As it is what you've said is vague and meaningless.

Thanks.

 

[Oscar Wao]

HIV/AIDS and medical marijuana

Marijuana May not Cause Cancer, According to Research

Marijuana cures cancer – US government has known since 1974 Patients for Medical Cannabis

...if you want some support for legalization on health grounds.

 

[BlindBoo]

Showing up for work under the influence will get you fired most places. The OP makes a false conclusion of a better economy.

Yeah, showing up drunk will get you fired too. But where in the article did he advocate that people show up to work under the influence of any recreational substance? That is a false argument. It is not a false conclusion. Marijuana prohibition has been costly in many aspects of our society not just the economy.

The problem with that argument is, it derives from a false premise.

I mean we could just as easily look at how much the prohibition to murder costs, but that's hardly the POINT.

The point being does society want to tolerate murder or let it run rampant?

Potheads then argue that marijauna is victimless but that is a narcissistic argument TO THE EXTREME.

Anyone living in Columbia or Mexico will tell you the trade HAS PLENTY OF VICTIMS.

The same people who will cry about letting illegal immigrants come into the country freely will take another toke and turn a blind eye to how many of them ARE KILLED so he can toke that blunt.

Domestic pot growing might cut into that blood shed on the American side.

BUT . .

Then I could go into the studies who have found smokers more likely to have mental illness, decreased intelligence, heightened emotions.

Any commodity designed to cause intoxication or a "buzz" as tokers call it, is going to cause effects on the brain.

Now you guys can believe that comes without consquences all you want. I don't buy it. Take a look at topspin!

I haven't met a pot smoker yet that didn't suffer some cognitive loss.

The smoker is always last to know it.

That's not victimless.

I also find it HIGHLY hypocritical that the same people FOR pot smoking are usually AGAINST cigarette smoking.

Anyone want to look at the cost to try and keep cigarettes out of the hands of people?

I don't see ANYONE complaining about that!

I think your Prohibition of murder comparison the false premise. The victims in the drug producing countries are victims of the prohibition laws, not victims of people using recreational drugs for pleasure.

I recommend every one grow their own and the need for importing the stuff will disappear.

Feel free to post any study that shows what you boast and I'll find one that debunks it.

I am for liberty and personal responsibility, **** the nanny State.

 

[saveliberty]

Jailing users not only decreases productivity, decreases personal income, increases absenteeism, but also cloggs up the court and jails, and that mean lots of taxes.

Showing up for work under the influence will get you fired most places. The OP makes a false conclusion of a better economy.

Yeah, showing up drunk will get you fired too. But where in the article did he advocate that people show up to work under the influence of any recreational substance? That is a false argument. It is not a false conclusion. Marijuana prohibition has been costly in many aspects of our society not just the economy.

Industrial and motor vehicle accidents as a result of the law being repealed will have a large cost. You seem to feel all the users will become law abiding citizens as soon as the law is changed. All it will do is encourage use in all aspects of life, including work.

 

[MikeK]

The liberals are all happy with $17B. in government revenue regardless of the Billions beyond that in lost productivity and personal losses in the real economy. Nice.

Please be more specific about the cause of the lost productivity and personal losses you've mentioned. It seems rather vague as it is.

 

[saveliberty]

The liberals are all happy with $17B. in government revenue regardless of the Billions beyond that in lost productivity and personal losses in the real economy. Nice.

Please be more specific about the cause of the lost productivity and personal losses you've mentioned. It seems rather vague as it is.

Come on Mike, you can think of at least a couple of reasons if you just try. Engage the brain, you can do it!

 

[topspin]

Savelargegoverment seems more appropriate than save liberty. Child please

 

[saveliberty]

Savelargegoverment seems more appropriate than save liberty. Child please

You want to screw up your life and bear the total costs and burden of that choice? I have no problem with that. Thing is, when you fail and are in trouble, you and people like you are going to expect me and people like me to pay for your your mistakes. That is why your liberty is restricted in this case, it effects others negatively.

 

[G.T.]

Savelargegoverment seems more appropriate than save liberty. Child please

You want to screw up your life and bear the total costs and burden of that choice? I have no problem with that. Thing is, when you fail and are in trouble, you and people like you are going to expect me and people like me to pay for your your mistakes. That is why your liberty is restricted in this case, it effects others negatively.

Now, be intellectually honest and tell us about all of the other, LEGAL products this is ALREADY THE CASE for.

 

[saveliberty]

Savelargegoverment seems more appropriate than save liberty. Child please

You want to screw up your life and bear the total costs and burden of that choice? I have no problem with that. Thing is, when you fail and are in trouble, you and people like you are going to expect me and people like me to pay for your your mistakes. That is why your liberty is restricted in this case, it effects others negatively.

Now, be intellectually honest and tell us about all of the other, LEGAL products this is ALREADY THE CASE for.

That was not the topic at hand G.T. Since you brought it up, sure, there are products that have far more negative impacts than postitve ones. I assume you are referring to tobacco use.

 

[G.T.]

You want to screw up your life and bear the total costs and burden of that choice? I have no problem with that. Thing is, when you fail and are in trouble, you and people like you are going to expect me and people like me to pay for your your mistakes. That is why your liberty is restricted in this case, it effects others negatively.

Now, be intellectually honest and tell us about all of the other, LEGAL products this is ALREADY THE CASE for.

That was not the topic at hand G.T. Since you brought it up, sure, there are products that have far more negative impacts than postitve ones. I assume you are referring to tobacco use.

Tobacco use, fatty foods, Smog Conditions, Flouride in water, sugarry foods, salty foods, alcohol, driving while tired, fixing your roof without a support-strap, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. et.c et.c

What you're proposing is a micro-management of which "dangers" should be legal.

What the opposition is proposing is Freedom, and let the chips fall. I wouldn't argue so vehemently against that and call myself a Conservative. It flies in the face.

 

[saveliberty]

Now, be intellectually honest and tell us about all of the other, LEGAL products this is ALREADY THE CASE for.

That was not the topic at hand G.T. Since you brought it up, sure, there are products that have far more negative impacts than postitve ones. I assume you are referring to tobacco use.

Tobacco use, fatty foods, Smog Conditions, Flouride in water, sugarry foods, salty foods, alcohol, driving while tired, fixing your roof without a support-strap, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. et.c et.c

What you're proposing is a micro-management of which "dangers" should be legal.

What the opposition is proposing is Freedom, and let the chips fall. I wouldn't argue so vehemently against that and call myself a Conservative. It flies in the face.

I did have the bold disclaimer in my post ,which you ignored, so you could get on your little soap box. Feel better? Great. Now, stop supporting the slippery slope to society's demise.

 

[G.T.]

That was not the topic at hand G.T. Since you brought it up, sure, there are products that have far more negative impacts than postitve ones. I assume you are referring to tobacco use.

Tobacco use, fatty foods, Smog Conditions, Flouride in water, sugarry foods, salty foods, alcohol, driving while tired, fixing your roof without a support-strap, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. et.c et.c

What you're proposing is a micro-management of which "dangers" should be legal.

What the opposition is proposing is Freedom, and let the chips fall. I wouldn't argue so vehemently against that and call myself a Conservative. It flies in the face.

I did have the bold disclaimer in my post ,which you ignored, so you could get on your little soap box. Feel better? Great. Now, stop supporting the slippery slope to society's demise.

I didn't ignore anything.

Fatty foods lead to heart disease. Heart disease is the #1 cause of death.

Now, if you feel that fatty foods should be illegal, at least you're consistent.

 

[saveliberty]

Tobacco use, fatty foods, Smog Conditions, Flouride in water, sugarry foods, salty foods, alcohol, driving while tired, fixing your roof without a support-strap, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. et.c et.c

What you're proposing is a micro-management of which "dangers" should be legal.

What the opposition is proposing is Freedom, and let the chips fall. I wouldn't argue so vehemently against that and call myself a Conservative. It flies in the face.

I did have the bold disclaimer in my post ,which you ignored, so you could get on your little soap box. Feel better? Great. Now, stop supporting the slippery slope to society's demise.

I didn't ignore anything.

Fatty foods lead to heart disease. Heart disease is the #1 cause of death.

Now, if you feel that fatty foods should be illegal, at least you're consistent.

Fatty foods are a necessary part of the diet. They help regulate certain body functions. Excessive intake of fat is a problem. Your argument is weak.

 

[G.T.]

I did have the bold disclaimer in my post ,which you ignored, so you could get on your little soap box. Feel better? Great. Now, stop supporting the slippery slope to society's demise.

I didn't ignore anything.

Fatty foods lead to heart disease. Heart disease is the #1 cause of death.

Now, if you feel that fatty foods should be illegal, at least you're consistent.

Fatty foods are a necessary part of the diet. They help regulate certain body functions. Excessive intake of fat is a problem. Your argument is weak.

Yea, and foods containing excessive amounts are legal. Where did I lose you? Alcohol is legal. Tobacco is legal. Smog is legal.

 

[saveliberty]

I didn't ignore anything.

Fatty foods lead to heart disease. Heart disease is the #1 cause of death.

Now, if you feel that fatty foods should be illegal, at least you're consistent.

Fatty foods are a necessary part of the diet. They help regulate certain body functions. Excessive intake of fat is a problem. Your argument is weak.

Yea, and foods containing excessive amounts are legal. Where did I lose you? Alcohol is legal. Tobacco is legal. Smog is legal.

I agreed with you on tobacco. Alcohol can be a postive in moderation. I was unaware people were willing ingesting more smog on purpose. I think just about any food can be eaten without being excessive in fat, if the portion is appropriate. Again, you ignore my point, "there are products that have far more negative impacts than postitve ones."

Further weakness in your argument when you have to pull out the shotgun and hope you hit the barn.

 

[G.T.]

Fatty foods are a necessary part of the diet. They help regulate certain body functions. Excessive intake of fat is a problem. Your argument is weak.

Yea, and foods containing excessive amounts are legal. Where did I lose you? Alcohol is legal. Tobacco is legal. Smog is legal.

I agreed with you on tobacco. Alcohol can be a postive in moderation. I was unaware people were willing ingesting more smog on purpose. I think just about any food can be eaten without being excessive in fat, if the portion is appropriate. Again, you ignore my point, "there are products that have far more negative impacts than postitve ones."

Further weakness in your argument when you have to pull out the shotgun and hope you hit the barn.

Boasting about who's "points are better," instead of just making points, is ******* juvenile. It's not going to encourage further dialogue and if you don't pursue dialogue, why the **** are you here?

Further, if you're going to say that alcohol is OK in moderation yet simultaneously are a proponent of keeping Marijuana illegal, you really have no moral *or* medical grounds to stand on. You might be thinking emotionally and not critically.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Showing up for work under the influence will get you fired most places. The OP makes a false conclusion of a better economy.

Yeah, showing up drunk will get you fired too. But where in the article did he advocate that people show up to work under the influence of any recreational substance? That is a false argument. It is not a false conclusion. Marijuana prohibition has been costly in many aspects of our society not just the economy.

Industrial and motor vehicle accidents as a result of the law being repealed will have a large cost.

I'm sure you have the data to prove that.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Savelargegoverment seems more appropriate than save liberty. Child please

You want to screw up your life and bear the total costs and burden of that choice? I have no problem with that. Thing is, when you fail and are in trouble, you and people like you are going to expect me and people like me to pay for your your mistakes. That is why your liberty is restricted in this case, it effects others negatively.

I'm sure you have the data to prove that.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

That was not the topic at hand G.T. Since you brought it up, sure, there are products that have far more negative impacts than postitve ones. I assume you are referring to tobacco use.

Tobacco use, fatty foods, Smog Conditions, Flouride in water, sugarry foods, salty foods, alcohol, driving while tired, fixing your roof without a support-strap, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. et.c et.c

What you're proposing is a micro-management of which "dangers" should be legal.

What the opposition is proposing is Freedom, and let the chips fall. I wouldn't argue so vehemently against that and call myself a Conservative. It flies in the face.

I did have the bold disclaimer in my post ,which you ignored, so you could get on your little soap box. Feel better? Great. Now, stop supporting the slippery slope to society's demise.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....that slope is slippery, because of all the bullshit.



*

Marajuana MYTHS

(Sorry about all the footnotes, kiddies. It's that evil-science stuff.)​