[Zipperfish]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm not sure who you're referring to in this regard, but here's my two cents.

If tobacco and booze are legal, then IMHO, so should marijuana. Tax the fuck out of it just like the other two and cut the deficit is my opinion.

This is why I hope pot stays illegal--because the more socialist among us will just want to conintue their free ride by taxing the crap out of anything fun. As it is, pot is easy to get and cheap. hand it over to the governmetn and it will be neither.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

The problem is that far too many people think that smoking cigarettes anywhere and anytime is a right (which it is not) instead of a privilege (which it most certainly is).

All drug addicts have a mental impairment, can't handle hearing the word no. Smokers are no different.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm not sure who you're referring to in this regard, but here's my two cents.

If tobacco and booze are legal, then IMHO, so should marijuana. Tax the fuck out of it just like the other two and cut the deficit is my opinion.

This is why I hope pot stays illegal--because the more socialist among us will just want to conintue their free ride by taxing the crap out of anything fun. As it is, pot is easy to get and cheap. hand it over to the governmetn and it will be neither.

Wow - methinks you've been partaking a bit too much.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

This is why I hope pot stays illegal--because the more socialist among us will just want to conintue their free ride by taxing the crap out of anything fun. As it is, pot is easy to get and cheap. hand it over to the governmetn and it will be neither.

Wow - methinks you've been partaking a bit too much.[/quote]

Why's that?

[bootlegga]

The Governator doesn't care about MJ use...

$1:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says no one cares if you smoke a joint.

The Hollywood actor-turned-governor signed a law five weeks ago that made possession of up to an ounce of marijuana the equivalent of a traffic ticket. It carries a penalty of no more than a $100 fine and no arrest or criminal record.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/1011 ... egger_leno

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm not sure who you're referring to in this regard, but here's my two cents.

If tobacco and booze are legal, then IMHO, so should marijuana. Tax the fuck out of it just like the other two and cut the deficit is my opinion.

This is why I hope pot stays illegal--because the more socialist among us will just want to conintue their free ride by taxing the crap out of anything fun. As it is, pot is easy to get and cheap. hand it over to the governmetn and it will be neither.

Fair enough, but as I'm not a user, I don't care what the end cost of the product is.

I just think that taxing a vice is a way for governments to find a way to pay for the ills they cause (like how the AB gov't funds anti-gambling programs with VLT revenues and health care/policing with cigarette/booze taxes).

[Zipperfish]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Fair enough, but as I'm not a user, I don't care what the end cost of the product is.

I just think that taxing a vice is a way for governments to find a way to pay for the ills they cause (like how the AB gov't funds anti-gambling programs with VLT revenues and health care/policing with cigarette/booze taxes).

I'm not sure that your arguments follow. Marijuana is probably one of the most, if not the most, studied drugs of all time. And virtually every major study has concluded the same thing as the original major study conducted by the British High Commission in 1896: Pot is a low risk drug; it's negtaive effects are, for the vast majority of people, minor, and it is overwhelmingly a personal, as opposed to a societal, risk.

So it's not that taxing the crap out of pot will "pay for the ills" it causes. Bottom line: It's just getting someone else to pay your taxes for you.

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Fair enough, but as I'm not a user, I don't care what the end cost of the product is.

I just think that taxing a vice is a way for governments to find a way to pay for the ills they cause (like how the AB gov't funds anti-gambling programs with VLT revenues and health care/policing with cigarette/booze taxes).

I'm not sure that your arguments follow. Marijuana is probably one of the most, if not the most, studied drugs of all time. And virtually every major study has concluded the same thing as the original major study conducted by the British High Commission in 1896: Pot is a low risk drug; it's negtaive effects are, for the vast majority of people, minor, and it is overwhelmingly a personal, as opposed to a societal, risk.

So it's not that taxing the crap out of pot will "pay for the ills" it causes. Bottom line: It's just getting someone else to pay your taxes for you.

Come on, you and I both know that if pot is legalized society will have to deal with gangs of potheads rampaging the city looking for munchies!

Seriously though, for me it's not so much about someone else paying my taxes as it is about someone paying taxes on an income that they aren't right now. Mostly, I'm not a fan of the underground economy.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Seriously though, for me it's not so much about someone else paying my taxes as it is about someone paying taxes on an income that they aren't right now. Mostly, I'm not a fan of the underground economy.

I'm also not crazy about the killing, the houses that are ruined and others endangered by grow ops, that it's easier for kids to get than booze etc. Or that lots of people are spending time in jail when they could be good, productive, taxpaying citizens of this country. I'm all for sin taxes - we've gotta raise taxes somehow, and this seems like a good way to go. As for pot being cheap, well I haven't bought any for a long time, but $2000 a pound doesn't sound all that cheap to me. And that's wholesale. But my aim with legalizing pot is certainly not to make it super cheap.

Zipper you seem to basically be turning into a libertarian with his nanny state stuff. Good luck with that.

[Zipperfish]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Come on, you and I both know that if pot is legalized society will have to deal with gangs of potheads rampaging the city looking for munchies!

Seriously though, for me it's not so much about someone else paying my taxes as it is about someone paying taxes on an income that they aren't right now. Mostly, I'm not a fan of the underground economy.

I can see that. I'm not a fan of the undergrond economy either. And I don't smoke pot and haven't for years so I have no personal stake. Just don't like the Nanny State direction we've been heading. Never mind banning pot and never mind regulating/taxing the hell out of it. Just let people make an individual decision and live with the consequences of their decisions.

That's called freedom.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

I'm also not crazy about the killing, the houses that are ruined and others endangered by grow ops, that it's easier for kids to get than booze etc. Or that lots of people are spending time in jail when they could be good, productive, taxpaying citizens of this country. I'm all for sin taxes - we've gotta raise taxes somehow, and this seems like a good way to go.

I'm with you on the organizaed crime element. Although I don't see why we "gotta riase taxes" and, more ikmportantly, I don't see why, if we do gotta raise taxes, it necessarily follows that you shouldn't pay your fair share. It sounds to me like you want to legalize pot not for any principled reasons, but because you want others to pay taxes for you.

$1:

Zipper you seem to basically be turning into a libertarian with his nanny state stuff. Good luck with that.

Oh, I've always had a libertarian bent, I think you'll find.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Pot is a low risk drug; it's negtaive effects are, for the vast majority of people, minor, and it is overwhelmingly a personal, as opposed to a societal, risk.

And there lies the great irony. The partaking of weed generates zero risk to anyone but myself. Yet because of its legal status, much of the current distribution network generates a rather significant societal risk.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

I'm also not crazy about the killing, the houses that are ruined and others endangered by grow ops, that it's easier for kids to get than booze etc. Or that lots of people are spending time in jail when they could be good, productive, taxpaying citizens of this country. I'm all for sin taxes - we've gotta raise taxes somehow, and this seems like a good way to go.

I'm with you on the organizaed crime element. Although I don't see why we "gotta riase taxes" and, more ikmportantly, I don't see why, if we do gotta raise taxes, it necessarily follows that you shouldn't pay your fair share. It sounds to me like you want to legalize pot not for any principled reasons, but because you want others to pay taxes for you.

I want to legalize pot because I think it will be less harmful for society. Is that principled - to me it's just self-interest.

I want the rich to pay more taxes than I do, so yep I guess I'm just not willing to pay my fair share.

We have to have taxes to run the state. So the question is where to get those taxes from. I like sin taxes, for one thing to pay for the damage that sin causes. Maybe pot doesn't cause much societal damage except to create some people who can't handle it and need mental help, and create a bunch of low motivation people. But if the state lumps pot in with drugs that cause more damage and so overtaxes pot, my heart doesn't particularly bleed.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

I want to legalize pot because I think it will be less harmful for society. Is that principled - to me it's just self-interest.

I want the rich to pay more taxes than I do, so yep I guess I'm just not willing to pay my fair share.

We have to have taxes to run the state. So the question is where to get those taxes from. I like sin taxes, for one thing to pay for the damage that sin causes. Maybe pot doesn't cause much societal damage except to create some people who can't handle it and need mental help, and create a bunch of low motivation people. But if the state lumps pot in with drugs that cause more damage and so overtaxes pot, my heart doesn't particularly bleed.

Well I can understand your viewpoint--with this scheme you get others to pay your taxes for you. However, it doesn't really stand the test of equitability, and will not likely be supported by those that have to shoulder your tax burden.

If you aren't willing to pay the taxes commensurate wiht the services you want, then instead of trying to find other people to pay for you, you should consider a cut in services.

[EyeBrock]

I think the single best reason for the decriminalization and state control of weed production/distribution/sale is the hazards that residential grow-ops pose to the general public.

I see the arguments for and against taxation etc. but I still haven’t seen anything that addresses the main concerns I have about illegal grow-ops in our sub-divisions, apartment blocks etc.

People will get weed whether it is proscribed or not.

Any regulation of weed should first and foremost reduce the risk of fire, contamination and booby-traps that grow-ops pose.

Really, who cares if people smoke weed but we should all care if the production of weed puts others at risk, as a great many grow-ops do.

Laws are meant to protect us, not regulate how people get intoxicated at home.