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?
I'm saying that it will have no overall effect on the gangs, not the market. They'll simply focus on the remaining illegal drugs and would soon make up the difference.
"You've alluded to this before; it's the idea that what is right is exactly in accord with what's legal."
Geez Louise. You're all over the place. Make up your mind already. Now it's about what is "right" versus what is "legal"?
You asked, "So if "people" decide that they want to lay punitive, punishing taxes on red meat ... that's just fine with you". I responded by saying that if the action is constitutional, yes.
I don't like taxes on red meat. I'd rather red meat weren't taxed. If it came to a vote, I'd vote against it. So, in that sense, it's not "fine" with me.
But if the majority, expressing their will through their elected representatives, decided to pass a law taxing meat, I don't have a problem with that constitutionally, no.
"The majority does not have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do"
Sure they do. The bulk of my property tax goes towards education. I don't have children. You're saying that because I'm a free man I shouldn't have to pay these taxes? Not because I'm greedy or selfish or self-centered or an individualist -- it's because I'm a FREE MAN. Well, it sounds better anyways.
Now, if we didn't have this big centralized government you're so fond of (you DO support the notion that the BOR does, or should, apply to the states, correct?), then the education decision would be made by each state and maybe I could find a state that exempts people like me.
"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."
I agree.
"According to you, a person who uses marijuana every month or so is not a marijuana user."
Huh?
Look. I'm tired of repeating myself. That statement makes no sense whatsoever, and I never said it. Stop saying "according to you ...". It's not according to me.
"I asked you before: how small must a minority get before it loses its rights?"
Nobody "loses" rights. That implies that someone "gave" them the rights to begin with or that you'll "get them back" from someone.
Your natural rights are protected by society. Or not. In our society, a federated republic, legislators (reflecting the will of the people) decide which rights will be protected and to what extent.
Plus, it has nothing to do with the size of the minority -- the disabled are a small minority, yet they were extended numerous rights that even I don't have.
"Absent that, though, can you think of any reason why it should be more expensive than, say, corn?"
Gosh. Why is lettuce more expensive than corn? Why is asparagus more expensive than corn? What kind of qiuestion is that?
Marijuana will be expensive mainly because 94% of the people don't want it to be cheap. Regulatory requirements will drive up the production cost. Liabilty issues will drive up the cost (gee, marijuana causes cancer -- let's sue). Licensing.
Then there's taxes. Federal, state, county, city ... everyone will want a piece of this new revenue source.
"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."
It's happening with cigarettes today. And the the government's response is very telling -- they're not lowering taxes (actually they're increasing them to make up the revenue shortfall). They're going after the tax avoiders. The smugglers, internet sales, Indian store sales, etc. Starting to look like the WOD.
"Not if it were done by a state, it wouldn't be."
A mass confiscation of guns would be unconstitutional, no matter who does it. The courts have already addressed that. It a ridiculous hypothetical.
"but even so, just because something isn't explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it isn't a right."
I agree. Likewise, just because something is a right doesn't mean the rest of us must protect it.
"And in this case it's a very fundamental right, the right to own and control your own body..."
It happens to have an effect on the rest of society. And our right to live how we want to live, our right to raise children in an environment we desire, trumps your right to engage in selfish, immoral hedonistic behavior.
How is it that your right should trump ours? Why must we protect your right to engage in this self centered activity?
(I don't mean you, personally.)
"Have you ever even attempted to justify your War on Drugs in terms of the benefits it provides for the costs?"
No, I haven't. I haven't done it for prostitution or porn or gambling, either.
Actually, I ask myself what's to be gained by legalizing marijuana (or all drugs). I haven't yet come up with (or heard) a good answer. Most of the benefits gained by legalizing marijuana can be gained by simply decriminalizing it.