Which drugs do you think should be legal for personal use? Part II

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Alcohol is simply so ingrained into our society's history that banning it is practically impossible.

The same is true of weed...

Marijuana is already illegal, so we'd (pardon the pun) hardly gave to go through much trouble to outlaw it. I know people break laws, but marijuana usage is not nearly as universal as drinking alcohol. I don't even know anyone over 21 who's never had alcohol, but I do know plenty of people who've never smoked pot.

(I'll admit I'm also additionally biased against smoking things because I am a runner and many of my friends are runners.)

Legalizing marijuana would end its status as a gateway drug so many young teens wouldn't need to enter the world of illicit drug dealing and have easy exposure to harder hallucinogens, amphetamines and the like.

You know you don't have to smoke weed to get high off of THC and cannabanoids. Thanks to the wonders of vaporizers and edibles, carcinogens are minimized.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

All of them except marihuana.

I hope you're trying to be ironic again. Otherwise you won a contest for this month's most idiotic statement.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I don't get the alcohol is bad, so we should legalize weed argument. Alcohol has taken a tremendous toll on us Americans both in our individual lives and in greater society. It is a problem, so why exacerbate permitting more such harmful activity? Driving drunk one day, and driving high the next...

And if you legalize drugs it will increase use, I don't care if you disagree with the addition "gateway" argument.  Alaska's attempt in the 1970s led to  teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. In Holland, heroin addiction levels have tripled after pot legalization. If you don't think that will happen for some reason, you can blame capitalism, for firms will do what they do best, market the hell out it.

And higher levels of use will exacerbate the drug issues we already have seen in our friend booze.

Basically when we say that, we're pointing out the hypocrisy in our legal system.  We allow alcohol, a potentially dangerous substance, but ban weed.  We see no reason why someone would support one thing being legal and not the other.

Yes, we know legalization would increase its use.  If it's legalized and allowed to be sold on the market, it would do wonders for the economy.  If we tax it, we'll pay off the debt.

[Sbane]

No one should be charged with a crime for drug use of any kind. Ever.

But I don't suggest that all of these drugs be legally available. Knowingly selling some of the most addictive and destructive of these substances should be criminal. End the War on Drugs and make those who profit from this social problem pay for the public health crisis that they selfishly create.

Presumably you feel the same way about Tobacco, and to a lesser extent, Alcohol companies?

The most used "illicit" drug, Marijuana, is less destructive than Alcohol and less addictive than Nicotine (and about the same as Alcohol). Arguably the health effects are less severe than in Nicotine, but I want to see more studies before I am comfortable saying that. Let's legalize Marijuana and really study it's effects, good and bad.

As for Alcohol, I got two words for you, Hepatic Cirrhosis.

Yeah alcoholism is a very bad thing man.

I just read the wikipedia article on Hepatic Cirrhosis and now I have to say:

Man, it's time to stay away from the alcohol.

Stay as far from it as you stay away from weed. (smoked Marijuana is probably just as harmful tbh, but vaping it might be safer than drinking)

[Sbane]

I can't see much of a reason toward alcohol being legal and not marijuana.

I can think of one: we tried it and it failed miserably, more so in fact than the War on Drugs.

What are you talking about? When did we legalize Marijuana after making it illegal in the 1930's? More people in America smoke Marijuana now than they did in the 30's, or anytime before that.

Marijuana is basically legal in California now due to the lax rules on medical Marijuana and even if you don't have a card the penalty for getting caught now is basically less of a hassle than getting a traffic ticket. All you have to do is pay a fine and don't even have to show up to court. So has California fallen apart? ( and please don't blame the housing crisis on Marijuana, please don't)

[RI]

If we tax it, we'll pay off the debt.

lol. There's no way we could possibly get that much money from a marijuana tax. Besides, if we tax it at too high of a rate, it would only encourage the same type of black market behavior we see now.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

If we tax it, we'll pay off the debt.

lol. There's no way we could possibly get that much money from a marijuana tax.

You don't know America.

[RI]

If we tax it, we'll pay off the debt.

lol. There's no way we could possibly get that much money from a marijuana tax.

You don't know America.

You obviously don't know math. Every person in the US would have to pay almost $50,000 in marijuana taxes to offset the US debt.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

If we tax it, we'll pay off the debt.

lol. There's no way we could possibly get that much money from a marijuana tax.

You don't know America.

You obviously don't know math. Every person in the US would have to pay almost $50,000 in marijuana taxes to offset the US debt.

Eh, what?  I don't recall saying this would pay off the debt entirely.  It would certainly help in paying it off.

[Roemerista]

I don't get the alcohol is bad, so we should legalize weed argument. Alcohol has taken a tremendous toll on us Americans both in our individual lives and in greater society. It is a problem, so why exacerbate permitting more such harmful activity? Driving drunk one day, and driving high the next...

And if you legalize drugs it will increase use, I don't care if you disagree with the addition "gateway" argument.  Alaska's attempt in the 1970s led to  teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. In Holland, heroin addiction levels have tripled after pot legalization. If you don't think that will happen for some reason, you can blame capitalism, for firms will do what they do best, market the hell out it.

And higher levels of use will exacerbate the drug issues we already have seen in our friend booze.

Basically when we say that, we're pointing out the hypocrisy in our legal system.  We allow alcohol, a potentially dangerous substance, but ban weed.  We see no reason why someone would support one thing being legal and not the other.

Yes, we know legalization would increase its use.  If it's legalized and allowed to be sold on the market, it would do wonders for the economy.  If we tax it, we'll pay off the debt.

I highly doubt a poor tax, like on cigarettes, would be such a boom to our economy. Putting aside the widespread use effects upon labour productivity, increased healthcare costs and general social cost will be greater than any benefit gained from drug taxes.

 It was estimated in 2000 that drug abuse cost American society an estimated $160 billion--that includes car accidents, medical bills, etc. Now you increase addiction of any sort, and increase its wide spread use...this tax better be bringing in more than 170  billion at least. And if Alaska is any bellweather, it would be much greater of a cost. Even factoring in the costs of the war on drugs, I do not believe that such a policy would be a net gain for society.

Believe it or not, my free-market compatriots, externalities due in fact exist. And they certainly do when it comes to drugs.

[RI]

If we tax it, we'll pay off the debt.

lol. There's no way we could possibly get that much money from a marijuana tax.

You don't know America.

You obviously don't know math. Every person in the US would have to pay almost $50,000 in marijuana taxes to offset the US debt.

Eh, what?  I don't recall saying this would pay off the debt entirely.  It would certainly help in paying it off.

Even so, at best a marijuana tax would bring in maybe a few billion dollars (and that's being generous) if impemented nationally, assuming people rush to buy the product with a heavy tax on it instead of just continuing to buy it illegally. Not exactly a panacea for our debt or deficit problems.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I don't get the alcohol is bad, so we should legalize weed argument. Alcohol has taken a tremendous toll on us Americans both in our individual lives and in greater society. It is a problem, so why exacerbate permitting more such harmful activity? Driving drunk one day, and driving high the next...

And if you legalize drugs it will increase use, I don't care if you disagree with the addition "gateway" argument.  Alaska's attempt in the 1970s led to  teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. In Holland, heroin addiction levels have tripled after pot legalization. If you don't think that will happen for some reason, you can blame capitalism, for firms will do what they do best, market the hell out it.

And higher levels of use will exacerbate the drug issues we already have seen in our friend booze.

Basically when we say that, we're pointing out the hypocrisy in our legal system.  We allow alcohol, a potentially dangerous substance, but ban weed.  We see no reason why someone would support one thing being legal and not the other.

Yes, we know legalization would increase its use.  If it's legalized and allowed to be sold on the market, it would do wonders for the economy.  If we tax it, we'll pay off the debt.

I highly doubt a poor tax, like on cigarettes, would be such a boom to our economy. Putting aside the widespread use effects upon labour productivity, increased healthcare costs and general social cost will be greater than any benefit gained from drug taxes.

 It was estimated in 2000 that drug abuse cost American society an estimated $160 billion--that includes car accidents, medical bills, etc. Now you increase addiction of any sort, and increase its wide spread use...this tax better be bringing in more than 170  billion at least. And if Alaska is any bellweather, it would be much greater of a cost. Even factoring in the costs of the war on drugs, I do not believe that such a policy would be a net gain for society.

Believe it or not, my free-market compatriots, externalities due in fact exist. And they certainly do when it comes to drugs.

No one's advocating for marijuana to be legal anywhere at anytime.  If a person's smoking weed in a car, they should be ticketed.  It should be treated just like alcohol.  And I love this argument on how this would cost America more on medical bills.  In that case, we might as well ban McDonald's and candy stores, too.  And besides, we already spend millions of dollars on keeping the drug illegal.  The argument over cost is invalid.

It's not the government's job to dictate what's appropriate and what isn't appropriate for society, because marijuana use is a personal decision that directly affects the person smoking it.  We shouldn't legislate morality, because everyone has different morals.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

If we tax it, we'll pay off the debt.

lol. There's no way we could possibly get that much money from a marijuana tax.

You don't know America.

You obviously don't know math. Every person in the US would have to pay almost $50,000 in marijuana taxes to offset the US debt.

Eh, what?  I don't recall saying this would pay off the debt entirely.  It would certainly help in paying it off.

Even so, at best a marijuana tax would bring in maybe a few billion dollars (and that's being generous) if impemented nationally, assuming people rush to buy the product with a heavy tax on it instead of just continuing to buy it illegally. Not exactly a panacea for our debt or deficit problems.

People would still buy it legally, even with a heavy tax, because it would be a hell of a lot easier than buying it on the streets.  As I've said, no, it wouldn't pay off the entire debt by itself, but it would fix our revenue problem by a lot if is taxed.

Here's a handy chart.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Fun fact: The US has the second highest rate of people who have admitted to using marijuana at any point in their life of any country. And the highest is Canada, and it beats the US by a margin not outside the margin of error. So if you remove the South the US probably wins quite easily, and might already anyway if you adjust for really religious people lying and not wanting to admit it. So even if you want to argue that marijuana causes problems, I fail to see how it would get worse.

Marijuana is also pretty tolerated in Minneapolis too and people aren't ever arrested for possession unless they're also committing another crime in the process (not really worth it anyway with Minnesota's lax penalties), and really no one cares. Not many seem to find it to be negatively affecting their life in any significant way, I've never heard of lack of marijuana enforcement being a complaint brought up to the city.

BTW it's funny Alaska is brought up, because even SARAH PALIN of all people said marijuana should be decriminalized and enforcement not prioritized. Of course also Pat Robertson did. This is actually one issue where the right wing wackos are far more reasonable than Moderate Heroes.

[Sbane]

If we tax it, we'll pay off the debt.

lol. There's no way we could possibly get that much money from a marijuana tax.

You don't know America.

You obviously don't know math. Every person in the US would have to pay almost $50,000 in marijuana taxes to offset the US debt.

Eh, what?  I don't recall saying this would pay off the debt entirely.  It would certainly help in paying it off.

Even so, at best a marijuana tax would bring in maybe a few billion dollars (and that's being generous) if impemented nationally, assuming people rush to buy the product with a heavy tax on it instead of just continuing to buy it illegally. Not exactly a panacea for our debt or deficit problems.

Medical Marijuana is sold at street prices in California. Everyone still wants to buy it from the Marijuana dispensaries. It's just much easier than having to deal with a sleazebag drug dealer. Doesn't that make sense to you?

As for the costs associated with Marijuana, it's already being used at very high rates. Those costs are already out there. I doubt usage can increase that much, especially habitual usage. Most people don't drink 4 beers a day, do they? Even though they are free to do so? Way, way more people just have drinks over the weekend, or a wine or beer with dinner etc.

[Roemerista]

What is and what is not appropriate for society is the entirety of public policy.

[© tweed]

What is and what is not appropriate for society is the entirety of public policy.

of course if we had anything vaguely representing a functional democracy, medical marijuana would be legal and regulated and drug possession across-the-board would be decriminalized, marking a massive shift to the more scientifically tenable position of dealing with drug use as a public health problem (as has been done very successfully with tobacco: take a look at US smoking rates over the past few decades).

[© tweed]

People would still buy it legally, even with a heavy tax, because it would be a hell of a lot easier than buying it on the streets.  As I've said, no, it wouldn't pay off the entire debt by itself, but it would fix our revenue problem by a lot if is taxed.

Here's a handy chart.

I'd caution you against using market logic as a line of argument in any circumstance.  granted, there will be issues such as this one where it benefits the egalitarian position, but the legitimization of using market logic as a ubiquitous problem solving paradigm will eventually lead to mass privatization of resources.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

What is and what is not appropriate for society is the entirety of public policy.

Not morality.  There's justice, and then there's morality.  Drug use is just a moral decision.

mass privatization of resources.

Which is not what I'm arguing for.

[© tweed]

I didn't say it was what you were arguing for.  read what I said.

[RI]

Using your numbers:

$14.1 billion savings by not fighting marijuana (and other drugs, so this number is higher than the savings if only marijuana was legalized)
+$778.2 million in new tax revenue
=14.8782 billion total to government

2011 budget deficit: $1.3 trillion
2011 total debt: $14.7 trillion

New revenue+savings as percentage of deficit: 1.14%
New revenue+savings as percentage of total debt: 0.102%

Whether or not marijuana should be legalized on moral grounds, the argument that it will even represent a drop in the bucket as far as the deficit/debt is concerned is at best, shall we say, optimistic and, at worst, an outright lie. We would be better off fiscally if we confiscated all of Bill Gates's money than if we legalized and taxed marijuana.

That said, if for some reason marijuana is legalized nationally (not likely any time soon), it should be heavily fettered with sumptuary taxes, but the goal in that case would not be the money raised, but the disincentivization of usage.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Using your numbers:

$14.1 billion savings by not fighting marijuana (and other drugs, so this number is higher than the savings if only marijuana was legalized)
+$778.2 million in new tax revenue
=14.8782 billion total to government

2011 budget deficit: $1.3 trillion
2011 total debt: $14.7 trillion

New revenue+savings as percentage of deficit: 1.14%
New revenue+savings as percentage of total debt: 0.102%

Whether or not marijuana should be legalized on moral grounds, the argument that it will even represent a drop in the bucket as far as the deficit/debt is concerned is at best, shall we say, optimistic and, at worst, an outright lie. We would be better off fiscally if we confiscated all of Bill Gates's money than if we legalized and taxed marijuana.

That said, if for some reason marijuana is legalized nationally (not likely any time soon), it should be heavily fettered with sumptuary taxes, but the goal in that case would not be the money raised, but the disincentivization of usage.

But the question is, then, would you rather continue to spend endlessly on drug prevention programs and locking people up, or would you rather legalize it and tax it as a small step toward debt reduction?  For the third time, now, I've said that this won't pay off the entire debt, but it would help.  And let's keep in mind, those numbers come from state-by-state marijuana consumption, as it is presently illegal.  If it is legalized, then, as I have also said, demand will go up, which would concurrently increase tax revenues.  There are millions of things the government could do to reduce the debt and deficit, but I don't think you quite understood my argument.

[Cincinnatus]

Using your numbers:

$14.1 billion savings by not fighting marijuana (and other drugs, so this number is higher than the savings if only marijuana was legalized)
+$778.2 million in new tax revenue
=14.8782 billion total to government

2011 budget deficit: $1.3 trillion
2011 total debt: $14.7 trillion

New revenue+savings as percentage of deficit: 1.14%
New revenue+savings as percentage of total debt: 0.102%

Whether or not marijuana should be legalized on moral grounds, the argument that it will even represent a drop in the bucket as far as the deficit/debt is concerned is at best, shall we say, optimistic and, at worst, an outright lie. We would be better off fiscally if we confiscated all of Bill Gates's money than if we legalized and taxed marijuana.

That said, if for some reason marijuana is legalized nationally (not likely any time soon), it should be heavily fettered with sumptuary taxes, but the goal in that case would not be the money raised, but the disincentivization of usage.

A drop in the bucket relative to our deficit, yes.  A small and unimportant amount of tax revenue?  Certainly not.  Morally and fiscally I support any of these drugs being legal, particularly marijuana.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Using your numbers:

$14.1 billion savings by not fighting marijuana (and other drugs, so this number is higher than the savings if only marijuana was legalized)
+$778.2 million in new tax revenue
=14.8782 billion total to government

2011 budget deficit: $1.3 trillion
2011 total debt: $14.7 trillion

New revenue+savings as percentage of deficit: 1.14%
New revenue+savings as percentage of total debt: 0.102%

Whether or not marijuana should be legalized on moral grounds, the argument that it will even represent a drop in the bucket as far as the deficit/debt is concerned is at best, shall we say, optimistic and, at worst, an outright lie. We would be better off fiscally if we confiscated all of Bill Gates's money than if we legalized and taxed marijuana.

That said, if for some reason marijuana is legalized nationally (not likely any time soon), it should be heavily fettered with sumptuary taxes, but the goal in that case would not be the money raised, but the disincentivization of usage.

A drop in the bucket relative to our deficit, yes.  A small and unimportant amount of tax revenue?  Certainly not.  Morally and fiscally I support any of these drugs being legal, particularly marijuana.

Couldn't have put it better.

[RI]

Using your numbers:

$14.1 billion savings by not fighting marijuana (and other drugs, so this number is higher than the savings if only marijuana was legalized)
+$778.2 million in new tax revenue
=14.8782 billion total to government

2011 budget deficit: $1.3 trillion
2011 total debt: $14.7 trillion

New revenue+savings as percentage of deficit: 1.14%
New revenue+savings as percentage of total debt: 0.102%

Whether or not marijuana should be legalized on moral grounds, the argument that it will even represent a drop in the bucket as far as the deficit/debt is concerned is at best, shall we say, optimistic and, at worst, an outright lie. We would be better off fiscally if we confiscated all of Bill Gates's money than if we legalized and taxed marijuana.

That said, if for some reason marijuana is legalized nationally (not likely any time soon), it should be heavily fettered with sumptuary taxes, but the goal in that case would not be the money raised, but the disincentivization of usage.

But the question is, then, would you rather continue to spend endlessly on drug prevention programs and locking people up, or would you rather legalize it and tax it as a small step toward debt reduction?  For the third time, now, I've said that this won't pay off the entire debt, but it would help.  And let's keep in mind, those numbers come from state-by-state marijuana consumption, as it is presently illegal.  If it is legalized, then, as I have also said, demand will go up, which would concurrently increase tax revenues.  There are millions of things the government could do to reduce the debt and deficit, but I don't think you quite understood my argument.

I understand your argument; I just disagree with your assumptions. Deriving taxes from marijuana is no more of a first step toward fiscal balance than defunding NPR or Planned Parenthood is. I don't think that such things should be pursued under that line of reasoning because unless further steps are implemented, as all such an argument is good for is patting yourself on the back, making yourself feel noble, and hiding that ideology is the sole reason behind the action; if there were no moral element to your vindiction, fighting for 1% of the deficit and calling it a good first step would be foolish and not something taken seriously.