Legalize, Tax Marijuana? (Libertarians Say Yes)

Fox ^ | 02/26/2009 | Glen Beck

[Responsibility2nd]

Growing our own is better than buying it from Mexico.

_______________________________

For now. But if it was legal, then you would see an increase in quality. Also an increase in supply and demand. And an increase in higher taxes. An increase in users. An increase in meth and cocaine. An increase in new prisons and hospitals. And on and on.

Oh. You would see one decrease. A decrease in American productivity as we re-enact the opium days of 19th century China.

[MarketR]

Hoo boy. And I suppose legaling alcohol and gambling also had no opportunity to raise tax monies???

Producing alcohol products is time intensive, costly, requires a bit of expertise and can be dangerous when dealing with distilling. As for gambling, I'll ask my poker buddies when I see them!

So can tobacco. But nobody grows their own tobacco for personal use

As far as I know, tobacco does not grow in the northern tier of states and requires a more sub-tropical climate to be of any value. Not to many commercial Tobacco farms in the Great Lake states, dontcha know!

And if Marijuana is legal... the State will support the sale and distribution of it. Why?

Did you read my post? Because anyone can grow it, the state or any other govt. entity won't be able to control or tax it!

[no-no bad dog]

The point I am trying to make is, where do we stop? If we legalize pot, why not coke. If we legalize coke why not meth. If meth why not heroine, etc. etc. There either has to be a line somewhere where we say this is it no more or we just forget it. Drug Prohibition has not worked any better than immigration control, I am just not ready to give up on either.Thanks for keeping it civil as that doesn’t always happen around here.

[Responsibility2nd]

Been reading ‘1984’, eh?

[MarketR]

You forgot the </sarc>

[Responsibility2nd]

Yes, anyone can grow it, but NO ONE will.

The state will clamp down on private marijuana growers once it legal.

The State has already done this in the past with cigarettes with no stamps. On untaxed booze.

And even you and your poker buddies. You remember times when even a friendly little game of chance was illegal in most states?

Well, I can promise you that if private growers intefere with the States collection of it tax dollars, there will be hell to pay.

The State always gets its $$$$.

[fight_truth_decay]

First off, I am not a Libertarian.

The subject foremost is Economics, which we are focusing on here.

A report by Professor Jeffrey A. Miron, The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition shows that marijuana legalization -- replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation -- would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods. If, however, marijuana were taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it might generate as much as $6.2 billion annually.

I look at more the Drug Cartels and how MS-13 has hunkered down in major cities across the US, become a nightmare in Mexico with severed heads displayed in boxes, made Phoenix the kidnapping capital,named Arizona the new drug gateway into the United States.

Joseph Kennedy made his money as an alleged "rum runner"(no witnesses) down through the Notches or boat runners out of Nova Scotia etc during Prohibition.

What better way to make money, than to make something hard to get, making those who have it, whatever it is, able to command whatever price. Powerful Canadians, and there were many others, many prominent, connected people in the US, making huge sums of untaxed money on the profits of rum running>

When Prohibition officially ended, with the ratification of the 21st amendment, Kennedy and his company, Somerset Importers, were poised to take advantage of the country’s legalized thirst with an enormous stockpile of liquor imports.(U.S. agent for Haig & Haig Ltd., John Dewar and Sons, Ltd. and Gordon's Dry Gin Company Ltd.)

So one might ask, who would be first in line to hold the growing, manufacturing, importing, production, distribution rights etc. to "drugs" if legalized? and would the homicidal maniacal gangs crumble at that point.

The cost of the War on Drugs has been enormous. We all can agree on that; and economically over time, a failure. But then the mayor of . Rosarito Beach, CA says: with "..fragmented leadership and relentless warring between factions wanting to dominate the flow of drugs into the United States( following the arrest in 2006 of the leader of the Arellano-Felix cartel).. Torres said, "I think we’re seeing the end of this fighting among themselves because I don’t think there are very many left of these head men."

Drug War Cost Clock updated for 2009.

[Ransomed]

You realize ol’ Flap Jackson in the Morning this Morning said he would be FOR legalized drugs as long as the welfare state was done away with? Doesn’t sound like Flap comes at it from a “moral” direction. Otherwise he’d still want some drugs illegal AFTER the welfare state was done away with.

Freegards

[DTogo]

If I showed you posts that called out for a response from Jim Robinson to refute this charge - and he made no response - then what you you think?

He's busy?

He's not interested in refuting certain positions on FR to please others?

It ain't called FreeRepublic for anything?

[MarketR]

The point I am trying to make is, where do we stop? If we legalize pot, why not coke.

The place we stop is where both addiction and damage occur. Also, realistic chances of control. I do not believe marijuana is either addictive nor is it more damaging than alcohol is, as a matter of fact alcohol is more damaging.

The chance of control, however is the real issue. Control of marijuana is impossible for the reasons I've stated previously. It can grow everywhere. Coca, however is very hard to grow and geographically known. Concerted efforts here are a much more realistic possibility. As is with heroin and its' opiate derivatives. Harder to manufacture, geographically constrained and known.

My postulation is to focus on the possible and stop trying to do the impossible.

[DTogo]

They try to, they forever try to post their anti anything government as a conservative position.

Well, we are something of a big tent...

[marktwain]

“Right, anarchy is ALWAYS the very best form of society to strive for. Let everyone do what ever they feel is right so long as they aren’t hurting someone else. Right?”

---

Straw man argument. We did not have anarchy with legal drugs for 130 years in this country. We did not devolve into oligarchy.

In the last 40 years we have had the war on some drugs. It seems to me we are headed for oligarchy very fast.

[hermgem]

Well, pot smoking appears to be unstoppable and is accepted at equal levels of smoking tobacco.
By legalizing pot we stop street dealing but at the same token take away income from street dealers, which simply move up the ladder selling coke.
Several years later our taxers,(recall how they justified the lottery to once and for all help the children), have again outspent tax revenues and then come along with the same argument of taxing coke.
Just take a guess how long before we are a “drug free” society and it's impact.

[Responsibility2nd]

Look at it this way.

When prohibition ended, it legalized the bootleggers.

As gambling was mainstreamed into our economy, it legitimized the Mafia. In fact the State makes more $$$ from gambling than the Mafia ever did.

And when drugs are legalized??? It will turn MS-13 into bona fide businessmen here in the US.

Prof. Miron has much to say about the savings legalized dope will bring us.

Funny, I see no figures about the loss of productivity when millions of US citizens are turned into addicts overnight. And of the costs of building new prisons to house the millions of Americans who turn to crime as drug addicts do.

[Responsibility2nd]

You make my point, exactly.

Jim Robinson will NOT take a stand against libs.

If he did, his FReepathons would maybe bring in pocket change.

[MarketR]

I was willing to listen and see your point right up to this....

And of the costs of building new prisons to house the millions of Americans who turn to crime as drug addicts do.

This is a specious argument. If this were the case, and being that alcohol is such an addictive substance, where are the tens of thousands of jailed prisoners who turned to crime for that "taste of the grape"? And, with cigarettes going to $5.00(is this right?) plus a pack, the prisons should be filled to capacity with cigarette junkies who can't afford their next puff.

There are always those who will turn to crime for what they want, when they want it. And while I agree some harder drugs (the opiates in particular) can be highly physically addictive, jailing pot users is ridiculous and a crazy use of taxpayer funds.

[DTogo]

And you're missing my point, completely.

Jim probably has other/better things to do than respond to every post here with his own opinion on the subject, or to direct the Mods to start deleting posts or banning FReepers with whom you, or some other FReeper(s) disagree with.

President Bush, Sarah Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, Savage, Hannity, the GOP, there are plenty of things here we sometimes agree or disagree on. Jim's silence (or simply being too busy) on any of these subjects doesn't mean he agrees or disagrees with them.

Heck I don't even know Jim, never met him. That's just my take.

[fight_truth_decay]

When prohibition ended, it legalized the bootleggers.

Kennedy had political connections, if we assume he was a rum runner; so the common gang MS-13..and they are just murdering punks..will not fall under governmental guidelines for distribution. If they did attempt so their income would be drastically reduced and their positions so minor. Why buy from MS-13 when you can get it from a Kennedy type guy, or Budweiser guy, a Board of Directors etc. The home brewed/grown stuff has no interest to the marketplace.

The reality is that the present war on drugs will never end, the way it has been run up to this point now. There is too much money involved - corrupting officials that swore to "serve and protect" on both sides of the border. Should you pay cops more would be another issue for later discussion.

Just a realist here. It's all about Big Business and its' ability to either succeed or fail. Leaves no room "for forced terror tactics" as before. MS-13 punks would be taken out by the economics.

Once you can legally have it..the thrill/ the edge is gone.

[nufsed]

I'm not much of a libertarian or lib anything. I'm am practical though. I can see no benefit in the war on drugs. Drugs seem to be a tough opponent and have not come close to surrendering or negotiating in the last 35 years. From what I read they have been in the field for over 2500 years.

So how about a practical approach from an economic stand point. Instead of making the gansters richer, let's get control of the market, legitimize it, and tax it.

You're support of the current approach is wasting my and everbody's else's money, making criminals rich, and not working. It's time to pull the troops back and redirect them to other "wars."

[no-no bad dog]

Well I was responding to their charge of hypocrite in my reply but if we are going to stop at the point of both addiction and damage occuring (your line in the sand) it would seem you should be advocating prohibition again as you stated alcohol is damaging and addictive. I guess for me control is not the real issue otherwise we would cave in on the “War on Immigration” as we obviously can not control our borders and meth can be made in your bathroom so we cant control that either. If we could get drug users to stop using their illegal drug of choice until Mexico can get a grip on their side of the border I would be happy for now. Until that happens I guess they (users) will have to live with the blood of Mexican LEOs on their hands. Thx