I didn't say it would have no effect. I admitted that marijuana represented 15% of all illegal drug revenues. I just said they black market could easily make up the difference. I believe I said it would have no effect on the gangs, and it's disingenuous of you to imply that it would.
"that's just fine with you"
If it's constitutional, then yes. Who am I to tell the majority they can't tax red meat? If these were state or local taxes, I could simply move to another state. But central government supporters like you make that impossible.
"So if a person goes to a party every month or so and smokes marijuana, he's not a marijuana smoker."
If a person smokes marijuana at least once a month, I consider that person to be a marijuana user. How much clearer can I be?
"By the way, 17% of those aged 18-25 have used marijuana in the past month."
So? 3% of those 35 and older have used marijuana in the last month. My 6% was those 12 and older.
"black markets are so inflationary that excise taxes can be made extremely high without making black markets price-competitive."
Tax-free legal medical marijuana in California sells for $480. per ounce. You can get black market for half that. Legal Amsterdam marijuana goes for $10/gram (=$280. per ounce). Tax-free legal medical marijuana in Canada is $150. per ounce (and it's garbage).
Marijuana can be expensive without taxes. Add enough regulatory and liability burden on manufacturers and it will be. Then, "taxing the hell out of it" will make it more expensive than street pot.
"That's your only objection to mass confiscation of guns, that it wouldn't be expedient?"
You're the one who proposed it. I'm saying it would be unconstitutional.
What, did you expect me to get emotional and hysterical like you? You expected me to start screaming and yelling and crying just because you proposed some impossible hypothetical?
You're lucky I even answered that piece of garbage.
Yes, you said that, implying that the size of a market is no big deal -- easily changed by producers -- and the disappearance of a large chunk of it has no effect.
I believe I said it would have no effect on the gangs, and it's disingenuous of you to imply that it would.
Wheat represents about 7% of the total value of U.S. agricultural production; would the sudden disappearance of the wheat market have zero effect on farmers? Would the farmers simply shrug and make it up elsewhere, suffering no difficulties whatsoever? Who's being disengenuous here?
If it's constitutional, then yes.
And here is the problem... well, one of the many problems. You've alluded to this before; it's the idea that what is right is exactly in accord with what's legal. That anything which is wrong must be illegal, that anything which is legal must be right.
Who am I to tell the majority they can't tax red meat?
Who are you to tell the majority that they can't tax red meat? I'll tell you: you are a free man. The majority does not have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do. If the majority wants to own slaves, it can't do it. Once upon a time, it could do it, constitutionally... that didn't make it right. That didn't make the perfectly legal slaveholders innocent of violating human rights. The majority has the raw physical power to take away your guns. It has the raw physical power to muzzle your speech, to institute forced abortions, to require that children be taught that George Washington was a pedophile, to prevent consenting adults from consuming their intoxicant of choice. All of these things are possible, some of them are constitutional, and none of them are right.
If these were state or local taxes, I could simply move to another state. But central government supporters like you make that impossible.
I do not claim that state and local laws prohibiting drugs are unconstitutional -- although the federal laws criminalizing possession of drugs are on much shakier constitutional ground. But unlike you, I don't expect the law to perfectly reflect ethics. I don't believe that anything which legally can be done should be done... nor do I believe that if something is constitutional, it necessarily infringes no rights.
If a person smokes marijuana at least once a month, I consider that person to be a marijuana user. How much clearer can I be?
You're perfectly clear; you're just silly. According to you, a person who uses marijuana every month or so is not a marijuana user. As I said earlier, this is a very Clintonian twist of the English language.
So? 3% of those 35 and older have used marijuana in the last month. My 6% was those 12 and older.
I asked you before: how small must a minority get before it loses its rights? 0.15% of American men have prostate cancer; are their interests beneath notice?
Tax-free legal medical marijuana in California sells for $480. per ounce. You can get black market for half that. Legal Amsterdam marijuana goes for $10/gram (=$280. per ounce). Tax-free legal medical marijuana in Canada is $150. per ounce (and it's garbage).
In the first place, as you implicitly concede, marijuana comes in many different quality grades at different prices, and comparing different grades in different locations is meaningless. In the second place, American medical marijuana is hardly in a free market; production must still be clandestine, as the federal cops (in a horrifying violation of federalism) continue to raid.
Marijuana can be expensive without taxes.
Yep, it sure can be... all you need to do is criminalize its production, drive it underground, deprive it of economies of scale. Absent that, though, can you think of any reason why it should be more expensive than, say, corn?
Then, "taxing the hell out of it" will make it more expensive than street pot.
Technically true... there certainly is some level of taxation that would make legal pot more expensive than street pot. But it wouldn't happen... because as soon as the black market becomes cheaper than the free market, the free market evaporates and tax revenues drop to zero.
You're the one who proposed it. I'm saying it would be unconstitutional.
Not if it were done by a state, it wouldn't be... but even so, just because something isn't explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it isn't a right. You know, the Antifederalists opposed the Bill of Rights. Not because they were opposed to freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right to keep and bear arms, or of the right to trial by jury, but because they knew that the Bill of Rights was not and couldn't be a completely exhaustive list of rights, and they feared that people might, seeing a Bill of Rights, conclude that anything which was omitted was no right at all. The Federalists, trying to appease them, came up with the Ninth Amendment... you should read it sometime. The Antifederalists continued to protest that a Bill of Rights would be construed to deny rights not listed. The Federalists said, "C'mon... what sort of lamebrain would read it that way when we explicitly say that it's not an exhaustive list?" And the Antifederalists took up a chant: "His name is robertpaulsen. His name is robertpaulsen. His name is robertpaulsen."
What, did you expect me to get emotional and hysterical like you?
Brother, you haven't seen me emotional, and that's a promise.
To whatever extent my emotions are involved, they're feelings of sorrow and mourning that yours is the majority attitude, that so many Americans have forgotten the dire warnings our fathers left us of the dangers of government power, that so many have no problem with rights being trampled as long as they're rights they don't personally choose to exercise. And in this case it's a very fundamental right, the right to own and control your own body... more than that, to control your own mind. Since we're talking about psychoactive chemicals here, we're talking about the government asserting authority to control the contents of your mind, what you're thinking and feeling. And good little sheeple like you just baa and repeat your "drugs are bad, m'kay" mantra, blind to the injustice. I weep.
You expected me to start screaming and yelling and crying just because you proposed some impossible hypothetical?
If you think government confiscation of firearms is an "impossible hypothetical", I suggest you learn some history. If you want a truly impossible hypothetical, try "marijuana is legalized and it has no effect on the drug dealers, and the price of free market pot is higher than that of black market pot."
You're lucky I even answered that piece of garbage.
Oh yes, I consider myself very fortunate indeed. Thank you for the blessing.
Have you ever even attempted to justify your War on Drugs in terms of the benefits it provides for the costs?