Posted on 03/05/2016 9:11:55 PM PST by Ken H
No, of course not. I've never met a single person who is for legalizing pot who has smoked pot.
The snarky ad hominem is not really helping advance this discussion . . .
And why would he want to advance this discussion?
Now you have: I was a regular smoker for several years, ending over 20 years ago.
In the big scheme of things, I would rather have a few criminals making some money than an entire society walking around stoned out of their minds.
And it is ridiculous that states “make money” from alcohol, drugs, the lottery, gambling, and so forth. It does not contribute to have a moral society as our founders wished us to have. It is blood / immoral / corruption money.
“Agents snagged roughly 1.5 million pounds of marijuana at the border, down from a peak of nearly 4 million pounds in 2009.”
I’m not sure what that means. Either less coming across or more effective/efficient ways of transportation.
In the big scheme of things, I would rather have a few criminals making some money than an entire society walking around stoned out of their minds.
First, it's ridiculous to think pot legalization will lead to "an entire society walking around stoned out of their minds" - alcohol is legal and more addictive than pot but we don't have an entire society walking around drunk out of their minds.
Second, it's not just the billions that the criminals make: it's the violence that this money enables and motivates them to commit.
States profit from boozers now - is that bad?
And it is ridiculous that states 'make money' from alcohol, drugs, the lottery, gambling, and so forth. It does not contribute to have a moral society as our founders wished us to have. It is blood / immoral / corruption money.
What's the solution? Banning alcohol also led to bloodshed and corruption - so much so that a supermajority of Americans voted to end the ban.
Of course USA legality is probably cutting the demand for imports?
Gotta love that American ag know-how!
I wonder if ag schools in legal grass states are developing the crop?
And how many people have died from legal alcohol since then?
And how many people have died from legal alcohol since then?
The policy-relevant questions are: how many more died than would have if alcohol had remained illegal (violent crime rose during Prohibition) - and how many of any additional deaths were self-inflicted, and thus not properly preventable by a ban-triggered increase in non-self-inflicted deaths?
It is impossible to know how many would have died if alcohol had remained illegal, but my guess is that it would have been significantly less. The salient point is that criminals would have been killing criminals. That is pretty much the norm anyway. But we do know that making alcohol legal and, therefore, inexpensive and easily accessed, has lead to thousands and thousands of deaths. This includes thousands of innocent people who have been hurt, maimed, and/or killed by drunk drivers.
Policy should not be based on guesswork.
The salient point is that criminals would have been killing criminals.
As well as noncriminals.
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.