Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Legalize, Tax Marijuana? (Libertarians Say Yes)
Fox ^ | 02/26/2009 | Glen Beck

Posted on 02/28/2009 8:55:36 AM PST by Responsibility2nd

GLENN BECK, HOST: Marijuana brownies, anyone? This is the worst — the people in our green room, I'm happy to say it's clear they've never been high.

I'm going to ask you what's wrong with this picture. Chicago is trying to fix $50 million budget — their budget gap by taxing car rentals in suburban areas. And now, California is talking about legalizing marijuana and taxing marijuana to solve their budget problems.

Rob Kampia is the executive director for the Marijuana Policy Project.

How are you doing — how are you doing, Rob?

ROB KAMPIA, MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT: Doing well.

BECK: All right. Do you smoke marijuana? Do you have any those marijuana's...

KAMPIA: Occasionally.

BECK: Occasionally?

KAMPIA: Yes.

BECK: It's against the law, you know.

KAMPIA: Yes. So, is speeding, a lot of people do that, also.

BECK: Wow. OK. You used to work for NORML, did you not?

KAMPIA: Yes.

BECK: Yes?

KAMPIA: Fourteen years ago.

BECK: Fourteen years ago. And is it true that you quit working with NORML because they were stoned all the time and that's all they really wanted to do was get high? They weren't serious about changing the laws?

KAMPIA: No, everyone there is very serious about changing the laws.

BECK: Really? OK.

KAMPIA: And the reason that — the reason that I left and started up the Marijuana Policy Project because I wanted to focus almost exclusively on lobbying and ballot initiatives.

BECK: OK. So, tell me because — look, I'm a libertarian. You want to legalize marijuana; you want to legalize drugs — that's fine.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: beck; liberaltarians; lping; marijuana; potheads; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-246 next last
To: DTogo
That's not the problem just say you are a damn libertarian and stop hiding it.
141 posted on 02/28/2009 7:29:58 PM PST by org.whodat (Auto unions bad: Machinists union good=Hypocrisy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1; Responsibility2nd; djsherin; bamahead; dcwusmc; Bokababe; Gondring; murphE; ...
And Libertarians rule this place.

It's not necessarily being "liberal on social issues," but rather trying to avoid the concentration and centralization of power. In order to fight a "war on drugs," you must design and implement Government machinery that can be turned against you at a later date.

Otherwise, ping to some resident FR Libertarians.

142 posted on 02/28/2009 7:31:34 PM PST by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Dutch drug policies do not increase marijuana use, first rigorous comparative study finds

Apparently, folks on the ground believe otherwise:

FR: "Holland scrapping liberal policies on drugs and brothels to clean up image"

FR: "Amsterdam, Holland: Prostitutes plan to fight back"

FR: "Amsterdam to close many brothels, marijuana cafes"

143 posted on 02/28/2009 7:40:22 PM PST by roamer_1 (Proud 1%er... Reagan Conservatism is the only way forward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Apparently, folks on the ground believe otherwise:

I saw nothing about usage rates in the linked articles. Do you have a source which says that the Dutch use more marijuana than the US?

The articles you linked also said nothing about a general prohibition returning. Wishful thinking by some, IMO.

Amsterdam had a murder rate of about 3.6/100,000 in 2007.¹ San Jose, one of the safest cities in the US with a population over 500,000, had a murder rate of 3.5 in 2007². Overall, the murder rate in the US is nearly 4X the Dutch rate.³

¹http://www.expatica.com/nl/articles/news/Record-low-murder-rate-once-again.html
²http://city-data.com
³http:/nationmaster.com

144 posted on 02/28/2009 8:25:15 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
I saw nothing about usage rates in the linked articles. Do you have a source which says that the Dutch use more marijuana than the US?

Of course not. There can be no reasonable rates of US pot usage~ any such statistics would be nothing more than a guess anyway, as the lion's share of pot users are underground, and have never been busted.

Amsterdam had a murder rate of about 3.6/100,000 in 2007.¹ San Jose, one of the safest cities in the US with a population over 500,000, had a murder rate of 3.5 in 2007². Overall, the murder rate in the US is nearly 4X the Dutch rate.³

So what? Is it your position that legalized pot and magic mushrooms would suddenly cause the drug trafficking gangbangers and crack driven criminals (the large portion of those US murders, I would bet) to quit their territories and find Jesus? Is it your assertion that there is some link between murder and illegal marijuana?

145 posted on 02/28/2009 8:56:35 PM PST by roamer_1 (Proud 1%er... Reagan Conservatism is the only way forward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
San Jose murder rate = 3.5/100,000.
146 posted on 02/28/2009 8:58:12 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Please don’t compare national defense with a government that needs to tell us how to live.

"Legalizing drugs is playing right into the hands of drug cartels."

legalizing drugs or not has NOTHING to do with national defense.

147 posted on 02/28/2009 9:08:10 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #148 Removed by Moderator

To: Responsibility2nd
First, we surrender to the Libertarians and legalize the crap. Secondly, we introduce it to our children in school.

Yes, in precisely the same way that alcohol was introduced into the public schools following the repeal of Prohibition.

149 posted on 02/28/2009 9:14:28 PM PST by Two Ravens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Of course not. There can be no reasonable rates of US pot usage~ any such statistics would be nothing more than a guess anyway, as the lion's share of pot users are underground, and have never been busted.

Agreed, and that strengthens my argument. Given that limitation on counting US users, they still found enough to conclude that Dutch policies do not increase usage rates.

Dutch users are not hampered by that limitation, so the number of US users is probably under counted compared to the Dutch.

So what? Is it your position that legalized pot and magic mushrooms would suddenly cause the drug trafficking gangbangers and crack driven criminals (the large portion of those US murders, I would bet) to quit their territories and find Jesus?

No.

Is it your assertion that there is some link between murder and illegal marijuana?

Yes.

Drug dealers kill each other over the lucrative, untaxed proceeds, just as they did over alcohol during Prohibition. The Mexican cartel wars killed about 6,000 last year. They are primarily fighting over marijuana profits:

John P. Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said marijuana, not heroin or cocaine, is the "bread and butter," "the center of gravity" for Mexican drug cartels that every year smuggle tons of it through the porous U.S.-Mexico border. Of the $13.8 billion that Americans contributed to Mexican drug traffickers in 2004-05, about 62 percent, or $8.6 billion, comes from marijuana consumption.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/

150 posted on 02/28/2009 9:30:06 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
URL at the end of my last post (#150) should have been:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022208dnintdrugs.3a98bb0.html

151 posted on 02/28/2009 10:00:55 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Drug dealers kill each other over the lucrative, untaxed proceeds, just as they did over alcohol during Prohibition. The Mexican cartel wars killed about 6,000 last year. They are primarily fighting over marijuana profits:

I will accept this assertion for the sake of the argument, though I find it extremely unlikely that marijuana is the primary "center of gravity" for major drug cartels anymore.

Even if that is the case, It does not sway my position one bit- Legalizing and taxing vice is a morally despicable position. I disagree with it profoundly on both counts, even as I disagreed with legalized gambling (and the income to the state it provides), which is now so much a part of the furniture here in MT.

It does strengthen my argument too, by the way, that the feds, (and primarily the Republicans) have done little in the way of real enforcement, and thereby the odious federal laws caused by the "war on drugs" must have a different motive. ANY effective means of curtailing drug availability begins with shutting off our southern border, like so many of our other problems these days.

You say "legalize because it is unstoppable anyway." I say "They have never really meant to stop it or they would have shut the border down, first thing."

I am *for* real enforcement solutions. The first, and primary one, is border enforcement.

152 posted on 02/28/2009 10:09:31 PM PST by roamer_1 (Proud 1%er... Reagan Conservatism is the only way forward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
I will accept this assertion for the sake of the argument, though I find it extremely unlikely that marijuana is the primary "center of gravity" for major drug cartels anymore.

I provided numbers directly from the ONDCP, you gave an opinion. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is more believable.

Even if that is the case, It does not sway my position one bit- Legalizing and taxing vice is a morally despicable position. I disagree with it profoundly on both counts, even as I disagreed with legalized gambling (and the income to the state it provides), which is now so much a part of the furniture here in MT.

The people of MT must not share your opinion as to legalizing and taxing vice, and CA may be looking to get its hands on some of the marijuana commerce. The trend does not look to be going in favor of marijuana prohibitionists.

Let me ask this, under the Constitution, do you think the decision to legalize marijuana within a state should be up to fedgov or to the individual state?

It does strengthen my argument too, by the way, that the feds, (and primarily the Republicans) have done little in the way of real enforcement, and thereby the odious federal laws caused by the "war on drugs" must have a different motive. ANY effective means of curtailing drug availability begins with shutting off our southern border, like so many of our other problems these days.

You say "legalize because it is unstoppable anyway." I say "They have never really meant to stop it or they would have shut the border down, first thing."

Singapore is an island nation with draconian drug laws, yet their rate of heroin addiction was worse than the Netherlands in 1996 (latest comparison year I could find). Iran was reported by the BBC in 2004 to have the highest rate of heroin addiction in the world. That means drugs are getting in. This links to a post with the sources.

I am *for* real enforcement solutions. The first, and primary one, is border enforcement.

I agree with border enforcement, but you're chasing rainbows if you think we're going to fight a "real" WOD. The War on Marijuana is collapsing.

153 posted on 02/28/2009 11:39:21 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
I provided numbers directly from the ONDCP, you gave an opinion.

*shrugs* My opinion is probably as informed as theirs... We have already determined that "they" really have no idea as to consumption, and I would assert that "they" are equally as ignorant as to supply, having no idea what is really coming across the border, or what is going on anywhere... Local hot houses and even acreages of marijuana make for a very large percentage if what is available on the street is any indication. What they capture from local growers is a tiny, tiny fraction of the distributable product.

Furthermore, just about any other drug is worth more per pound, is easier to smuggle, and has just as ready a clientèle. Cocaine would seem to be the product with the most bang for the buck- Marijuana would be a waste of space in Columbia when it will grow just as well almost anywhere.

The people of MT must not share your opinion as to legalizing and taxing vice, and CA may be looking to get its hands on some of the marijuana commerce. The trend does not look to be going in favor of marijuana prohibitionists.

That does not make the people of MT or the people of CA right in their determinations.

Many a family paycheck is taken by the one-armed bandit here now- Families that already have little enough are now with damn well less. And sanctioned by the state, so it's all ok. It's "victimless", after all- They can always go get food stamps from the feds I guess.

Let me ask this, under the Constitution, do you think the decision to legalize marijuana within a state should be up to fedgov or to the individual state?

As I said above, I don't think the fed has any business telling any state what to do about anything within it's sovereign borders. That includes any drug, and any regulation thereof- with the exception of the Constitutionally granted powers that are enumerated to the Federal Government.

It is my position that the fed has a legitimate jurisdiction in matters of interstate trafficking, and international trafficking, including whether or not something is legal to import or export across the US border.

In addition, it may be reasonable to assume that the fed and the states assembled (through some arrangement) should be able to facilitate agreement on what is legal and what is certainly *not* in both medicine and illicit drugs for some form of sanity and uniformity's sake... And perhaps, if everyone is in agreement, some arrangements could be made to help states with less money to cover the costs incurred in enforcing such a uniform code.

But I would hasten to add, such agreements would remain between the states respectively, and *not* in the hands of the fed, and certainly not meant to be coerced participation. The fed might facilitate, but must not profit by it. And where differences occur, they are the state's sovereign right within it's borders to determine.

And yes, I do mean to leave even the fate of heroin and every other sort of illicit drug in the hands of the sovereign state, as well as the regulation of every sort of medicine. We may disagree over pot, perhaps, but it seems reasonable to me that most states, left to their own devices, would come up with something similar enough in kind, and diverse enough to keep us free. This is what I believe our founding fathers had in mind, and what we would be better advised to implement.

Bear in mind, this does not make me any less a proponent of the war on drugs. I just think the execution thereof has been wholly bastardized for a different purpose.

Singapore is an island nation with draconian drug laws [...]

Singapore is also noted for being singularly corrupt- Bribery is a way of life, the triads control everything, and have for centuries. Statistics do not always tell the tale.

I agree with border enforcement, but you're chasing rainbows if you think we're going to fight a "real" WOD. The War on Marijuana is collapsing.

Believe it or not, I agree with you. But I think the reason for that is because somebody's been packin' sand up our nether regions for a very long time. And the reason it will fail (and it will fail totally, I am afraid) is because far too many will remain faithfully attached to a party which is leading them down the garden path- And I am not speaking of Democrats.

154 posted on 03/01/2009 1:41:42 AM PST by roamer_1 (Proud 1%er... Reagan Conservatism is the only way forward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
As I said above, I don't think the fed has any business telling any state what to do about anything within it's sovereign borders. That includes any drug, and any regulation thereof- with the exception of the Constitutionally granted powers that are enumerated to the Federal Government.

It is my position that the fed has a legitimate jurisdiction in matters of interstate trafficking, and international trafficking, including whether or not something is legal to import or export across the US border.

In addition, it may be reasonable to assume that the fed and the states assembled (through some arrangement) should be able to facilitate agreement on what is legal and what is certainly *not* in both medicine and illicit drugs for some form of sanity and uniformity's sake... And perhaps, if everyone is in agreement, some arrangements could be made to help states with less money to cover the costs incurred in enforcing such a uniform code.

But I would hasten to add, such agreements would remain between the states respectively, and *not* in the hands of the fed, and certainly not meant to be coerced participation. The fed might facilitate, but must not profit by it. And where differences occur, they are the state's sovereign right within it's borders to determine.

And yes, I do mean to leave even the fate of heroin and every other sort of illicit drug in the hands of the sovereign state, as well as the regulation of every sort of medicine. We may disagree over pot, perhaps, but it seems reasonable to me that most states, left to their own devices, would come up with something similar enough in kind, and diverse enough to keep us free. This is what I believe our founding fathers had in mind, and what we would be better advised to implement.

I would second that.

155 posted on 03/01/2009 3:19:56 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
I would second that.

Now, as I assume you are a Libertarian minded fellow, I have a question for you:

Imagine, if you would, that the WoD is just being conceived. All of the affronts to liberty and to state's rights have never occurred, no coercive measures, no raping of the Commerce Clause...

If we were under the afore-mentioned framework (as declared in my last post), with all states and the federal government passing supporting legislation enacting something similar to the WoD, but mindful of the tenets laid out in the framework as discussed, would you still stand as firmly against the WoD?

It has been bandied about on this thread that you dope smokin' Libertarian hippies only care about getting your pot legalized. It is my contention that it is the ill-conceived federal construct that gives you fits (and rightly so). Which one is it?

156 posted on 03/01/2009 5:21:17 AM PST by roamer_1 (Proud 1%er... Reagan Conservatism is the only way forward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
... It has been bandied about on this thread that you dope smokin' Libertarian hippies only care about getting your pot legalized. ...

Dude. Where do you get the idea that anyone that "smokes pot" is a Libertarian or a "hippy"? Is it your contention that smoking "pot" should be illegal?

I guess you're right. We can't have competition, can we?

Why can't we all just get along?


157 posted on 03/01/2009 5:37:12 AM PST by WVKayaker (When you come to a fork in the road, take it. -Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

legalizing drugs or not has NOTHING to do with national defense

________________________________________________

Are you totally oblivious to the talks of war against Mexico?

Our country faces a far greater threat with the WOD than we do with the WOT.

I repeat: We should NOT surrender on either front.


158 posted on 03/01/2009 5:38:12 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Two Ravens
OK, alcohol is not a good example. Try this on for size:

Yes, in precisely the same way that alcohol was introduced into the public schools following the repeal of Prohibition. endorsing gay sex ......

159 posted on 03/01/2009 5:41:23 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

This libertarian and many others, including Ron Paul, favor legalization but DO NOT advocate a tax on the product. Now...perhaps you will find a better argument for your position.

____________________________

I might believe you don’t want to tax pot. But look at how California libs want to.

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/marijuana/index

Please don’t attempt to think that Libertarians (libs) don’t want the stuff taxed. They do.

And as I keep saying. Legalizing pot (like booze, like cigarettes, like gambling....) will lead to taxation and bigger government.

Not mention a nation of pot heads.


160 posted on 03/01/2009 5:48:57 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-246 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson