Posted on 07/31/2005 7:53:25 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
This is ridiculous! It should be legal.
Thanks for the pings! Dang, it's hard to keep up with you!
I agree. I'm as conservative as they come, and I don't drink at all or use any drugs other than tylenol, but the fact that pot is illegal is idiotic and a waste of resources.
The tax revenue on legalized pot would be huge, even if the tax was one-tenth the percentage on tobacco (the highest taxed product of all time percentage-wise, I believe around 1000-2000%). Plus, there would be a reduction in crime and less non-violents in prison. AND the DEA could focus on the really 'evil' drugs like cocaine!
PS- My drugs are caffeine(thrice daily), nicotine(hourly - ouch!), sometimes alcohol(rarely) and an occasional aspirin(very rarely). I don't consider pot a drug and I don't do tylenol. LOL
Hey, Governor Wallace said basically the same thing in his "Schoolhouse Door" speech!
"The unwelcomed, unwanted, unwarranted and force-induced intrusion upon the campus of the University of Alabama today of the might of the Central Government offers frightful example of the oppression of the rights, privileges and sovereignty of this State by officers of the Federal Government. This intrusion results solely from force, or threat of force, undignified by any reasonable application of the principle of law, reason and justice. It is important that the people of this State and nation understand that this action is in violation of rights reserved to the State by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama."
Until such time as you and others say:
"The tax revenue on legalized cocaine would be huge, even if the tax was one-tenth the percentage on tobacco (the highest taxed product of all time percentage-wise, I believe around 1000-2000%). Plus, there would be a reduction in crime and less non-violents in prison. AND the DEA could focus on the really 'evil' drugs like meth!"
Until such time as you and others ... well, you get the idea.
Oh, and those high tobacco taxes are driving the product underground where the government will collect $0. But that won't happen with marijuana.
What's this "You and others..." BS. Don't try to lump me in a group only you imagine I belong to!!! You changed my post from referring to pot to referring to cocaine. I guess your saying those who would legalize pot now would legalize cocaine in the future. NOT me! I've seen how bad cocaine is, especially the concentrated form. I have ex-acquantances who've lost everything due to non-pot drug use. Pot is about the same as alcohol. What's the difference between a drink after work or a joint? Basically nothing except legality. While cocaine usage deceptively erodes ones civility, ethical and moral being before the user is even aware of their demise. It seems so easy to handle at first, but then possesses the user like a demonic plague. I'm vehemently against cocaine and all hard drugs. I will never support legalizing cocaine! On a scale of 1-10 for how bad something is, I put alcohol and pot at 2 or 3, while I consider cocaine to be a 10.5! So DO NOT EVEN try to put me in that group!
"Oh, and those high tobacco taxes are driving the product underground where the government will collect $0. But that won't happen with marijuana."
Huh?!?!?!? Maybe you're being sarcastic here. Or you've got to be kidding. $0??? Underground tobacco is a pretty small %. The government gets huge revenue from tobacco (the last estimate I saw, said a pack of cigs costs $.25 to produce while it sells for close to $5, $4.50-4.75 is tax revenue). Yes, there would be underground pot. But, still most would be taxed if legal. Personally, I'd like to see those that want to, be able to grow their own. Even if the government received no revenue for the 'pot tax', dollars would be saved by not pursuing pot users. And those dollars could be put to better use!
Put words in someone else's mouth. OK?
Please don't try to define my personal moral boundaries for me!
My response was simply that one could also apply those exact same points to cocaine, with meth as the 'evil' drug. I guess not, huh?
Well then, would you consider legalizing other soft drugs such as Ecstasy, GHB, LSD, nitrous, psilocybe shrooms, peyote, valium, and the like?
Yes, I do believe a) tax on pot would bring in huge revenue (but I could be wrong), b) crime would be reduced, c) less people would be put in prison with non-violent natures and d) the DEA could focus on more 'evil' drugs.
"My response was simply that one could also apply those exact same points to cocaine, with Meth as the 'evil' drug..." - you're right they could, but IMO and, I believe, for many others, that would not be plausible, accepted on a wide scale or rational. Based on statistics, cocaine will never be considered as harmless as alcohol or pot. Have you ever heard of crack babies? A nurse friend of mine deals with them almost every day. Have you heard of pot babies? -No, at least not in these terms. There are big-babies that smoke pot however. LOL
Your list of 'soft' drugs actually are on my list of 'hard' drugs. I think a high majority of people would agree. Ecstasy seems really bad, although I don't have any personal experience of using or knowing users. Hasn't Valium been legal for quite some time? Personally, I consider Valium very bad also. All powdered drugs (including prescription, opiates, uppers and downers) seem to have negative aspects far beyond alcohol or pot usage, except aspirin possibly. We may agree quite a bit here, but seem to have completely different feelings about the dangers of pot. Just guessing here though.
It's too easy to grow excellent pot. The tax revenue would be nonexistent.
The tobacco companies already got hit for billions in legal settlements. I doubt they'd be anxious to do that again by manufacturing marijuana cigarettes.
"b) crime would be reduced"
Well, yeah. But you can say the same about prostitution. Or theft. Or cheating on your income taxes.
No too many people are robbing liquor stores to get money for their next joint.
c) less people would be put in prison with non-violent natures"
Keep in mind that almost all of those in prison on drug charges are there for dealing drugs, not using them. Legalize marijuana and they'll simply deal another drug and end up in back in prison.
"d) the DEA could focus on more 'evil' drugs."
99% of marijuana arrests are made by local or state police. The DEA (actually the ONDCP) is focusing on the borders and on drug education.
I was wrong! We disagree more than I thought. I'll use the letter system.
a) Many pot smokers are lazy and would buy it from a legal seller. New companies would arise, besides the tobacco companies to sell pot. Growing good pot is not that easy. Location and weather are very important.
b) Illegal transactions themselves are a crime and often include other criminal acts such as gun usage.
c) Fortunately, pot possession laws aren't as harsh now. However, some police do use pot laws for harassment and unwarranted searches. Just like pot users, most dealers would not move to harder stuff. Pot dealers are usually of a different nature than cocaine dealers when it comes to violence.
d) They don't make it a high priority, but the DEA does deal with pot. Maybe I should've mentioned CAMP, California Against Marijuana Producers. Mucho bucks for the war on drugs is dedicated to pot. Have you heard of how they swoop down from helicopters on suspected pot lands, detected by heat-sensing photos, with machine guns ready? I know of land owners being put in jail for pot grown on their property without even knowing it was there or OKing it. In NoCal there's an epidemic of this. Unethical growers use other's private and public lands for their plants and even put up booby traps that endanger others. I would like to see these criminals go to jail. Pot laws usually don't get these guys, and may actually increase their number.
Oh, now it's "not that easy". Geez Louise -- I sure do wish people would make up their minds.
"Illegal transactions themselves are a crime"
OK. And making that illegal transaction legal would reduce crime. Yes, that's quite obvious.
What other crimes would be reduced? You say gun crimes, because gun crimes often accompany marijuana buys? Really? A shootout for 20 grams?
Oh! You mean gang shootings over drugs. Well, that ain't gonna stop unless you legalize all drugs which you said you're not about to do.
"Just like pot users, most dealers would not move to harder stuff."
Ah, I see. They'll just go out and get a real job. Uh-huh. Yep. Sure they will.
"They don't make it a high priority, but the DEA does deal with pot."
Yes. About 1% of the time, the DEA is involved in some kind of a drug arrest. I said that already.
Last post, I said "growing good pot is not that easy."
And, now your response is:
"Oh, now it's "not that easy".Geez Louise -- I sure do wish people would make up their minds."
Here you go again... I never said it was easy to grow - maybe your mixing me up with another FReeper. Earlier I said "I wish people were allowed to grow their own". How do you get my saying growing good pot "is easy" out of that???!? Again you are twisting and changing my words and meaning from an earlier post. Are you high on cocaine or something??? Or do you work for the liberal MSM?? Have a good fishing expedition! I'm off to other issues.
I was generalizing.
Every other pro-marijuana FReeper says marijuana is easy to grow: "It's a weed." "It grows in ditches." "Anyone can grow it".
You're the very first one that says "growing good pot is not that easy". FWIW.
The 14th Amendment ruled out discrimination; nothing in the Constitution empowers the feds to regulate intrastate drug transactions.
Who said anything about regulating intrastate commerce? I surely didn't.
What I DID do was tell you (a couple of times) that the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to LEGISLATE intrastate ACTIVITY in order to effectively regulate interstate commerce.
Slipped your mind, huh?
That makes sense. The key word is 'good'. What's known as dirt weed is not to tough to grow. It sucks and I stopped smoking that sh!t years ago. I stayed with an expert (he won awards for the best quality) grower for a week about 25 years ago and he went through a lot of motions for perfection. At a precise moment they basically remove something on the females kinda like little 'balls' and pull up all the males so the females will produce more and higher quality. Good pot needs special soil (buried road kill works great -lol) and humidity, like they have close to the ocean North of S.F., plus plenty of water and lots of sun. Ergo, Humboldt 'skunk' weed - the best in the world in my opinion. Sorry I was a little harsh on you. Hope all is well!
Who said anything about regulating intrastate commerce? I surely didn't.
Nor did I ... having reading trouble?
What I DID do was tell you (a couple of times) that the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to LEGISLATE intrastate ACTIVITY in order to effectively regulate interstate commerce.
No it doesn't, as regulating intrastate acitivity is not Constitutionally proper.
A drug transaction is not commerce? Then was is it?
"No it doesn't, as regulating intrastate acitivity is not Constitutionally proper."
Did I say regulate? No, I did not. I said legislate.
Get it right numbnuts -- I will not tolerate you misquoting me.
Some transactions are noncommercial.
Did I say regulate? No, I did not. I said legislate.
LOL! I'll let that preposterous hairsplitting speak for itself, as it says far worse about you than I could do (without being banned).
No one deserves the title of "weasel" more than you.
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.