Legalize Pot

[Bob Forsythe]

I've hopped back on here to post this. I have no desire to engage in arguments on this forum because it's basically a right-wing forum where wingnuts just post things so the wingnuts can agree with each other.

But having written that, I watched a CNBC show today about the pot industry. They interviewed a guy who runs a medical marijuana store. He was asked how much he paid in state taxes in 2008 and he said he paid 300 grand. They asked how much he paid in Fed taxes and he said 550 grand. Whether or not he was truthful, the simple fact is that a ton of tax bucks could be taken from the sale of pot, which is not addictive and far less harmful that booze.

The only reason pot is illegal in this country is because the drug companies and booze industries don't care for the competition.

And please spare me the bull$#!+ about how it's a "gateway drug". The simple facts are these:

-Pot is not addictive.

-The Mexican cartels are about 80 percent invested in pot.

-The Mexican cartels have moved into Norcal, are pushing out our home grown farmers and the cartels kill people.

-Legalize pot and virtually all the drug violence in Mexico would go away as would the violence that is increasingly spilling over into the U.S. Frontera.

=Bob

[uwaztec]

I don't know.... I go back and forth on this. A lot of your points are right on Bob. However, when I think about the baby boomers I know who are still regular smokers, they tend to be the least interesting people I know. Certainly not the deepest thinkers for sure. I know people who have smoked pot since they were 16 and they are in their 50's now. Are they habituated or addicted? From my personal observation, it does seem to dull the brain after long term use. If I was the competition like China or India, I would love for the US to legalize pot and get every American possible smoking it. That being said the violence in Mexico and the cartel farms in our National Forest and BLM land is extremely disturbing to me.

[AlwaysAnAztec]

Agree 100 percent. If it is legal then much of the violence in Mexico goes away. Tax it and a new, large, source of revenue for the government is available.

[AztecWilliam]

I am sympathetic to your position on this issue, but the question is very complicated. The whole thing is a genuine dilemma.

If we keep our current laws in place the violence and damage to the stability of governments (especially those south of us) will continue.
On the other hand, were drugs to be legalized, their use could very well increase many fold. That would cause greatly increased damage to the fabric of society.

Prohibition of alcohol from 1920-1933 is an interesting case study. It's true that Prohibition helped expand and entrench organized crime. On the other hand, consumption of alcohol actually did decrease during those years. One must conclude that certain problems caused by alcohol abuse must have declined accordingly.

One can argue the libertarian principle that citizens should be allowed to punch their own tickets to personal destruction. As a libertarian voter since 1976 I am in general sympathetic with that thinking.

On the other hand, do we want to face the increased damage done to the fabric of society that will be virtually inevitable if we allow people to buy and use drugs openly and legally?

As I said above, it's a genuine dilemma. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. I do not have a good answer.

AzWm

[aztecwin]

Bad idea for many reasons stated many times. I like the idea of the revenue, but wonder if the net result would be a gain if users are duller with less ambition to work. Heavy users are often even lazy to the point of not bathing all that often. I don't know if I care one way or the other about the well being of anyone dumb enough to use pot to any extent. I do care about the general welfare on all fronts of society as a whole and therefore am against this baloney.

I must laugh a little that =Bob will come over here and post this nonsense but does not have the intellect to debate political issues. Could there be some sort of pot connection?

[ptsdthor]

The reason why you don't engage in arguments here is that you, being a left winger, would by default be forced to carry the water of this idiotic Obama administration that is seemingly captive of every leftist loon idea conceived. I don't blame you for running.

Mar 16, 2010 18:48:40 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

I've hopped back on here to post this. I have no desire to engage in arguments on this forum because it's basically a right-wing forum where wingnuts just post things so the wingnuts can agree with each other.

But having written that, I watched a CNBC show today about the pot industry. They interviewed a guy who runs a medical marijuana store. He was asked how much he paid in state taxes in 2008 and he said he paid 300 grand. They asked how much he paid in Fed taxes and he said 550 grand. Whether or not he was truthful, the simple fact is that a ton of tax bucks could be taken from the sale of pot, which is not addictive and far less harmful that booze.

The only reason pot is illegal in this country is because the drug companies and booze industries don't care for the competition.

And please spare me the bull$#!+ about how it's a "gateway drug". The simple facts are these:

-Pot is not addictive.

-The Mexican cartels are about 80 percent invested in pot.

-The Mexican cartels have moved into Norcal, are pushing out our home grown farmers and the cartels kill people.

-Legalize pot and virtually all the drug violence in Mexico would go away as would the violence that is increasingly spilling over into the U.S. Frontera.

=Bob

Geeze - listen to all these would be libertarians and fiscal conservatives (except for when it comes to the government dole, union rights, retirement benefits, safety net expansion, entitlement expansion, yada, yada, yada... )

The reason why you don't want to hear about pot as the Gateway drug is because it is irrefutable. Those who are for legalization can't deal with the statistics that show pot users are 16 times or so more likely to be involved with heavier drugs. So they try to cloud the facts by saying that tobacco or alcohol are the real "gateway" drugs or offer other such false "cause and effect" arguments. No... they used hard drugs because they put Ketchup on their fries...

Why do we know they are just fooling themselves? Take a look at "America's Greatest Generation". They were all introduced to the drugs in Tobacco and Alcohol very early in their lives and it didn't lead to illicit drug use within their generation. The increase in America's illicit drug use only came along the 60s and 70s and on as pot was made increasingly available.

And look at the studies of what early introduction of pot does to young teens. It is well documented and it causes an inordinate amount of later illicit drug use and related addictions in their lives. But those on the legalization side simply say that these kids were destined to be ruined by drugs because they had addictive personalities. Tell that to families who are forced to mortgage a house or cash our IRAs to fund their kids rehab (and those are the lucky ones). These self absorbed and clueless twits would cashier their mother if it meant a consequence-free existence at someone else's expense.

And those think that drug cartels would somehow cease to exist if Pot was legalized really need to read a history book or two. The organized crime syndicates associated with Prohibition were supposed to go away with its repeal, but now we have gangs and gangland violence everywhere. With more fried-out pot-heads and illicit drug users brought about by legalization, the more the need for opiates, hallucinogens, etc would be and illicit drugs would still drive gangs and related crime.

It is better to keep up the fight at this level and not throw the next generation under the bus for the sake of few selfish old-fart refugees from the 60s and 70s. Obama is doing enough of that economically, why would anyone want to do that culturally?