Skip to comments.3 views on whether states should legalize marijuana
Posted on 09/11/2012 12:21:05 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
This November, voters in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington will consider ballot measures to legalize and regulate marijuana, much as alcohol and tobacco are taxed and regulated. In this first in a series of "one minute debates" for election 2012, three writers give their brief take on the issue.
The 'yes' case is argued by Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). The 'no' position is offered by David G. Evans, a special adviser to the Drug Free America Foundation. And a middle path is suggested by Kevin A. Sabet, who has worked on drug policy under three presidents of both parties.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
“There will never be significant taxes to collect.”
Right - an approximate $22billion idustry “will never” produce “significant taxes to collect”. /sarc
So, your personal animosity towards a certain segment of a society should be enough to warrant the criminalization of a naturally-occurring substance and continue the expanding reach of the federal government into the private lives of American citizens.
Solid reasoning there, friend.
Why would I dislike what an atheist libertarian has to say?
You believe in a Utopian vision through regulation and you hate Ann Ryan a corner stone of conservationism.
Why are you on a conservative web site trolling?
Then how is it California collects $100M tax revenues yearly on $1.3B in medical marijuana sales?
Bull, and no, ditch weed isn’t what I grew, you guys keep trying to spread the myth that salable pot is difficult to grow, but it isn’t.
Making good tobacco cigarettes is difficult, that is why people don’t do it.
This mythology that you guys are trying to create is dishonest.
Your example of $1000.00 an ounce is one, the 1960s wasn’t fueled by $1000.00 an ounce weed. You want seeds, then legalize pot and you will have all the good seeds that you want.
The fact that there are pot heads for you to hate shows how unsuccessful prohibition is. We’re spending billions of dollars a year making it illegal, and everybody knows people who smoke it.
“the drug alcohol” did not and does not create alcoholism, a behaviorial condition brought about by persons who get into an excessive drinking habit; a habit that the vast majority of alcohol consumers do not allow themselves to develop
Alcohol is no more responsible for alcohomism than sex is for sex addiction, or than guns are for “gun violence”.
Even when people fail to control their behavior, that failure CAUSED by the drug, the sex, or the gun violence, and that failure is not fixed and permanent and control is within their ability.
Blame the person, not their choice of addiction; and it is a choice.
In order for freedom to work we must allow people to be stupid. Other wise we must give into the Utopian vision of socialism
The only things the WOD has accomplished is shredding the Fourth Amendment & making a lot of criminals rich.
Rich criminals? I assume you mean the drug cartels. Yesss, they are very rich. Do you also want them to become successful US business corporations too? The next Anheuser Busch and Jim Beam?
I didn't think so.
If this is a war, what exactly is the exit strategy?
Winning by not surrendering. Yes, there will be casualties. There will be the occasional no-knock raid gone bad. But the alternative to surrendering in the WOT or the WOD is unthinkable.
So do you think states should decide on medical mj, and not the feds? YES or NO
Once it is legal, then it will become fully legal.
Is alcohol fully legal?
because he a brainless drug warrior.
He actually believe that the cops know better than science or lawyers.
R2nd is just a JBT-worshiping statist.
Gee, before you post think for a minute.
Legalize pot and those tightly regulated, medical dispensaries disappear, so does most of that tax revenue.
Pot in California, will be being grown everywhere, little old ladies will be producing great pot to sale.
“Only a fool wants to replace booze with a far greater danger to America.”
No one is arguing to “replace” booze.
Those who like it will continue to consume it, and those who like to “light up a joint now and then” will continue to do so also. The najority who consume either will do so in moderation - as is the case now, without acquiring an addiction, and with us much safety responsibility as found now in the population.
Meanwhile, millions will continue to abstain from consuming either, no matter what the law permits.
Self control, and respect for it, is preferrable to busybodies.
Really, that’s all you’ve got? Lamest. Troll. Ever.
“Pot in California, will be being grown everywhere, little old ladies will be producing great pot to sale.”
That is not happening with tobacco and the process for the two is the same. My great grand mother, uh, dealt with both...LOL
You amuse me. You really do.
Was Rand an atheist? Was she a libertarian? That’s ALL I said.
I really like the way you liberals wad up them panties over the basic fundamental truths I’m laying down.
Prohibition made a ragtag bunch of street hoods into the Fortune 500 company known as The Mob, Inc.
You’re increasingly becoming unhinged.
Maybe a good belt or bong hit might do you some good.
PS, you cannot legislate morality in a free society, pal. You’re no conservative, you’re an authoritarian statist.
No bull about it. It’s a simple truth. There’s good weed and there’s bad weed and the easy to grow stuff is bad.
There’s nothing dishonest in what I’m saying, you’re fact are simply wrong.
Would anybody have paid $95 dollars for 10 seeds of the stuff you grew? How about $180?
Then there’s the work of turning seeds that are worth $9 a piece into good pot (step 3):
No the 60s weren’t fueled by pot. Much like the roaring 20s weren’t fueled by high end booze. But the facts remain, in all things there’s the good stuff and the bad stuff and the good stuff is a lot of work and when the good stuff is legal people prefer to buy that than make their own bad stuff. If reality was the way you’re saying nobody would buy beer because any idiot can make beer, and actually beer that’s better than Budweiser is easy (which shows you just how bad Bud is), and yet the majority still buy rather than make.
The empirical evidence is in and the bull is all coming from you.
I read a book (don’t remeber Title/Author) many years ago about the Carter Administration secretly working w/Big Tobacco to make a report on the assets & liabilities of legalisation.
The issue that stopped Carter from moving forward was that Law Enforcement had no accurate way of determining at a traffic stop if a driver was under the influence.
Technology has advanced so far since then, does anyone know if such a method exists today?