Posted on 10/20/2010 10:38:20 AM PDT by Nachum
The most persuasive argument for legalizing pot might just be a dollar sign.
California's pot crop is worth $14 billion, according to a state report. The Press Democrat points out that crushes the wine crop which comes in at $2 billion.
Legalization would be a huge shot in the arm for plenty of ancillary industries, such as banking and construction.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcbayarea.com ...
He asked me, "Do you know what the penalty for smoking pot while driving is in this state."
I answered, "Election to the governership?"
Still trying to decypher this sentence... 1) OK, people using an illegal drug are paranoid (frequently about getting caught) - got that part. 2) Ccraving of appetite - OK I understsand that too. Pass the beer nuts and slim jims - booze does it too. 3) "the fat soluble blood-brain crossing nature of this supposedly benign weed" - ?? Not sure what you mean here unless you are going to cite some research where they stuffed rats full of super-strong THC and the rats were all screwed up or something? Is that what you meant or am I missing something?
Yeah right, they will rake in billions on trying to tax that...lol. It's too freaking easy to grow if legal to collect much of anything in taxes on retail sales.
I’m buying stock in FritoLay...
Legalization will kill all of the profit in the pot trade.
Not because increased supply would reduce consumer pricing. Unions would take over and profit would be zapped to null.
They could probably just isolate the cannabinoids. But anything can be vaporized (easily in these modern times) to avoid the smoke.
You silly goose, don’t you know that the pro-pot people says that it is IMPOSSIBLE for weed to harm anyone? I mean go to you tube and see ALL the videos that says how weed is so much better than alcohol, that it doesn’t cause intoxicated driving, so surly you must be mistaken(hope I don’t need the /SARC tag!)
Cannabis, pot’s active component is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and is a cannabinoid, as are other compounds like THC in nature and our bodies. Brain research has identified cannabinoid receptors in human brains. Cannabis has been identified having a role in schizophrenia, by activating expression of specific genes which are identified with the disease. Most cannabinoid-like molecules are fat-soluble, meaning they’re attracted to the lipid membranes of cells, and have trouble crossing the blood-brain barrier. The blood brain barrier is a separation of circulating blood and cerebrospinal fluid in the central nervous system. It is found along all capillaries and is made up of very tight areas around the capillaries in the brain that is not found in normal circulation. It is believed to be protective of the brain in this way. THC, the main active compound in marijuana, is a cannabinoid that does cross the blood brain barrier unlike natural brain cannabinoids. So, it crosses the barrier and has demonstrable effects on behaviour and also trigger gene expression in the process. The “dosing” of the gene markers differs in people, and so the studied effects.
Sorry, meant to paragraph this.
Bottom line is that anything that crosses the blood brain barrier can cross over to have profound effects on brain function, or neurologic function.
THC does this more in some people than others, but it does it. Not preaching, just saying.
Thanks for the explanation. Honestly though, I just haven’t seen it and I have known a number of long time users. I sincerely doubt we are going to see more schitzophrenics when marijuana is legal. I do believe we will see new problems because there are always unintended consequences of any actions but that doesn’t mean the bad effects and unintended consequences of keeping it illegal are better than those from making it legal. When it doubt, I think it’s best to error on the side of freedom.
As for the argument that you don't want to grow government, so we should keep something illegal because to legalize it will take more government. What? The entire War on Drugs has grown government and given the federal government way more power than is necessary, IMHO. It seems a little strange to make an argument that we need to continue keeping something illegal to reduce the size of a government which spends great gobs of money keeping something illegal. So I should keep spending tax money to keep something illegal because I think I'd have to spend more tax money making it legal? At least money derived from taxing a legal product is based on a use tax and not a tax on everyone and everything like the taxes that support a drug enforcement policy that has been a colossal failure (if the real intent was to limit its use).
Finally with respect to your assurance that "People of belief, given reliable information can at least restrict their own temptation in this and many other areas of self-limitation.". Fine. Then what's your problem? Self-limit all you want. If it's the people of non-belief that you are worried about, where do you draw the line in passing laws to enforce your own morality on the non-believers? Is that what the founders wanted - people of faith to legistlate so non-believers who aren't strong enough won't be tempted? I'm not buying that either.
Both prescription and recreational drugs, including marijuana can cause or worsen the symptoms. So one should not be so cavalier as to the outcome or with a broad brush dismissal of a well studied disorder. The trials I was speaking about have been done with placebo and cannabis.The genetic data is compelling whether one “buys” it or not- rational thought and large cultural experience to date should give one pause, to be sure. A shotgun approach of “let's see what happens” on the basis of prejudiced self serving endpoints, driven by illicit political money is irresponsible.
As for the taxes that could be collected on a weed that can be cultivated easily at home (just like they did behind jazz clubs in Texas), I doubt any revenue model can justify legalization for revenue. Unless of course one is with RJ Reynolds et al and you're sitting on a warehouse full in South America (I have friends in the tobacco business who have seen this- and they are trying).
To clarify: my argument is that if we shrank government we wouldn't need to expand the use of what is clearly not a benign agent. We don't need to seek new revenue streams- we have enough now. Legalization for revenue is a easy argument of convenience, and a false one. The argument for pot falls down in this particular article since it does not account for the market value of “wine” or even raisins for that matter. It does not add up to compare illicit trade market value from limited acreage crop (and indeed who is doing the counting of the tonnage?) to current legal market value of wine/raisins with vastly more acreage. A stupid comparison by people with an agenda.
As for disdain shown for people of belief, I was not preaching my beliefs. A review of the Founders, who were deists, is that they believed religion and belief were essential to stability of free people in a society governed by rule of law, and that respect and adherance to the rule of law could not be had without morality.
Washington said “Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” The limits of personal freedom are of course the damage to another that may be done.
Broad unrestrained freedom, runs up against the reality of the damage to society caused by those who cannot or will not control themselves and why we must have laws to restrict things that have proven to be destructive. It is especially egregious to use our God given freedom and rights to support facile arguments against “legislating morality”. Some things are not legal, and should not be legal when one is well informed and whose understanding of freedom is delimited by our Constitution. The Founders knew what they were talking about and human nature has not changed. Deo Vindice
The Weeds of Wrath.
Well its a matter of settled law that it is federal control. Firearms, in my opinion are another matter, as this involves a right to keep and bear arms. My personal preference this would be true for alcohol/liquor which to some extent is controlled within state jurisdiction (state stores). Isn’t it interesting that alcohol, tobacco and firearms merit their own executive enforcement agency, as a result of control through taxes? Firearms have no business being in that group.
The marijuana tax act of 1937 was repealed by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which placed pot as a Schedule I agent, along with heroin and many other psychoactive agents, which is controversial but that’s where it is, and puts it as federal.
Insofar as CA legalizing pot, it would affect interstate commerce even as it is federally illegal by the 1970 CSA so the Commerce Clause would be invoked in the enforcement certainly. As a states rights issue you raise an interesting challenge from a Tenth Amendment perspective that the fed govt. does not have the power to regulate this delegated to it in the Constitution.
In the past, Commerce Clause has won out over 10th in this type of thing. Not going to pass however- but if it does there is no way federal law and DOJ would not intervene.
Stupid is as stupid does. Just say NO!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.