ANSWERS: 9
  • I think it should be legalized. I personally don't smoke pot (and haven't for many many years), but I would rather see the money that is currently being spent on arresting, convicting, and imprisoning people for pot spent on drug rehab for people with addictions to more dangerous drugs instead.
  • I think it's about fucking time that we did more than pay lip service to the notion of "freedom" in this country. It would also be nice to see people accept "responsibility" and/or "accountability" for their actions and choices, too, but I don't see either happening in my lifetime.
  • I don't think much of it at all. (Here come the DR's again...) First of all, let's take the legitimate medical uses of MJ out of the discussion here. That's not what is at issue inthis diecussion. Cocaine is also an illegal narcotic, but it has legitimate medical uses as well. For the sake of this discussion, I'm assuming what we are talking about the unrestricted social use of MJ. Unrestricted does not mean unregulated. By unrestricted, I mean production, distribution, selling, buying, possession, and use in a fashion similar to tobacco products. The main active agent in MJ is THC, which is classified in three catagories: stimulant, depressant, AND hallucinogen (with stronger leanings towards hallucinogen than the other two). There are also a few dozen other related compounds as well. To legalize and tax MJ means the product must be regulated. To regulate a product which contains a hallucinogenic compound means you have to be able to control the concentrations of that compound and make those concentrations known. And, since it's a hallucinogenic compound, this MAY imply that there would be "dose limits" similar to those you would find on over the counter medications at your local drug store. Don't laugh. I'm not kidding here. Just consider the liability concerns with legalizing a known hallucinogenic compound WITHOUT these things. Law suits would fly right and left for injuries and deaths caused by people using MJ that Uncle Sam said they could. Now, the easiest and best way for this regulation to occur is through commercial production of MJ. NOT personal production and distribution. COMMERCIAL. Now, given that MJ does not have the large marketing background that tobacco does, this means production and availability will, at least in the beginning, be somewhat LESS than for tobacco. The law of supply and demand says that the prices will be high because of this. Also, since the physiological affects of THC are significantly different than the much simpler nicotine drug in tobacco (classified as a stimulant only), this means that the product will be able to command a higher price than tobacco. All of which means that MJ will be SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than, say, cigarettes. And don't forget you still have to pay taxes on this as well. Speaking of taxes, commercially produced MJ will be EASY to tax. Just like tobacco. But tax revenue from MJ sales are not likely to be as significant as one would think. Why? Well, let's think about this for a minute. Currently, people who smoke MJ either grow their own or they buy it, and pretty darn cheaply, from a friend or associate who does grow it...or is otherwise supplied. So why would people buy commercially available MJ that is far more expensive when they could buy it like they always did? But wait...it gets better! Remember the law of supply and demand? Well, a funny thing happens to a formerly cheap product when the market starts producing a more expensive version of the same thing. Those that sell the cheaper stuff look at your alternative...and they start thinking: if he doesn't want to buy from me, his only other option is the commercial stuff. I can start charging HIGHER prices now, as long as I still undercut the competition and he'll HAVE to pay! So the price of that MJ you used to buy starts going up, too. And that tax thing people like to use to justify legalization? If people are not buying much commercial MJ, then there won't be much tax revenue from it. And if people are growing their own or buying it like before, they aren't likely to be reporting it to Uncle Same because they don't want to pay taxes on it. Economically, I don't see it as viable. Now, I don't say it CAN'T be viable. And I don't say it WON'T be legalized sometime in the future. But my personal feeling is that it won't be...and if it is, the MJ people will be gouged out of a lot of their own money that they normally wouldn't have spent for MJ. And if the regulation of MJ does not include legally growing, distributing, or selling as an individual...then people are STILL going to be arrested and tried for crimes related to MJ.
  • Would they tax Strawberry Haze?
  • I completely agree. I do not and have not used pot. Taxing would help our economy and put a new slant on drug lords. +5
  • That is what I've been saying for years. More than half the people in prison are there because of drug related crime. Legalizing marijuana is the first step in clearing prisons, reducing crime and violence, and developing a revenue stream sorely needed by local government. I don't believe that there should be a federal tax on drugs, it should be the state and local government that should benefit. Look at what happened to the liquor industry during prohibition. It was taken over and was the main contributor to organized crime. When prohibition was lifted, those organizations took the blow and went into other endeavors what we easier to for the police to control and shut down. Then we "got tough on drugs" and new and more brutal organizations took over. State control over morality is the surest way to increase crime. I blame the "drug czars" and ultra-conservatives for the current state of affairs. I remember the good old days when you bought your dope from the local hippie, now it comes from some guy with an Uzi. In the current economic situation, things can only get worse.
  • I would not mind at all if they legalize drugs in America as well as in Britain. The Netherlands made very good experiences with their legalization and so the USA and Britain could take this for a good example. After my opionion a very good idea for certain countries.
  • So all the hard drug users would switch to weed? I started on cigarettes and alcohol that way, couldn't stand the things at first but everyone else was doing them and I felt such a wimp. Finally got the taste with cigarettes and I was away, but went through the lot cigars, cheroots, lots of peer pressure. Took me as long to quit as it did to start but much more painfull. Its very seductive reasoning, but I don't think it hold's good. Alcohol is legal but we still have fights, murders and no go area's were it's around. I was addicted to tobacco not to alcohol, but I was addicted by availability, peer pressure and a society which said it was cool to walk about with a cigarette between your lips. Which is what would happen with weed. So no I don't think it's anywhere near a good idea. What would be a good idea would be to increase penalties on those found dealing and distributing.
  • I'm all for it! Potheads are a danger to one thing and one thing only....JUNK FOOD! A world of relaxed laid back people rather than a bunch of uptight pricks!!

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy