Decriminalization of LSD Bill [Passed/Vetoed/Withdrawn]

[Sam Spade]

Decriminalization of LSD Bill

Section 1: Applicability
1. This law shall only apply in the District of Columbia and in federal territories which do not form part of any Region.

Section 2: In Regards to the Legal Status of LSD
1. The possession and consumption of LSD (also known as lysergic acid diethylamide, LSD-25, or "acid"), a non-addictive semisynthetic psychedelic drug, shall be lawful for anyone who is 18 years or older.
2. This law shall not be interpreted as to decriminalize driving under the influence of LSD.

Section 3: Purchasing LSD
1. The sale of LSD shall be regulated by the government
2. All sales of LSD will be taxed 22%
3. Purchases of LSD will be limited to 500 micrograms of LSD per day.

(Sponsor: DWTL)

[Sam Spade]

A simple question:  In Section 3, Clause 2, LSD is taxed at 22% of what?

[King]

Sorry for being a dreamless skeptic, but this sounds like a waste of time as it will probably be amended to holy hell and even if it passes it will eventually be repealed if and when the right wing takes re-control of the Senate.

That is all.

[Sam Spade]

Sorry for being a dreamless skeptic, but this sounds like a waste of time as it will probably be amended to holy hell and even if it passes it will eventually be repealed if and when the right wing takes re-control of the Senate.

That is all.

I doubt the right-wing takes control of the Senate any time soon considering the dead weight red-avatar voters on the voter rolls right now and the eight-month limit before they are removed.

[Brandon H]

Sorry for being a dreamless skeptic, but this sounds like a waste of time as it will probably be amended to holy hell and even if it passes it will eventually be repealed if and when the right wing takes re-control of the Senate.

That is all.

If DWTL sponsored this bill
and the right wing will repeal it,
Does that mean DWTL is not ring wing?

[Ebowed]

I motion to strike Section 3.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A simple question:  In Section 3, Clause 2, LSD is taxed at 22% of what?

I'd presume 22% ad valorem tax unless DWTL intends to build up a government LSD stockpile by having a 22% in kind tax.

[Ebowed]

I'd just like to know where the 22% figure is derived from?

I'll vote against final passage if that clause is in the bill, fwiw.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Sorry for being a dreamless skeptic, but this sounds like a waste of time as it will probably be amended to holy hell and even if it passes it will eventually be repealed if and when the right wing takes re-control of the Senate.

That is all.

Yes, because I am just a left-wing loony

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'd like to speak on behalf of my bill.  This is a bill I previously liked, but Ebowed had withdrawn due to the tax.  I believe that legalizing all drugs is the best step any country can take, and this is the first step.  However, the government can also use this as a tool for making money.  Considering the pharmacy price of most street drugs is 2% the street price, a 22% tax would hardly discourage people from buying it there instead of a dealer.  I ask the senate to support this bill and take the first step to the truest of freedom.


For more references on to why this is a good idea I suggest further reading in this article which will explain the economic specifics of why we should do this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

[Ebowed]

We shouldn't be considering legalizing drugs for economic reasons.  If the purpose here is to exploit drug users and effectively establish a tax on the poor, I am not interested.  I am more interested in the gradual decriminalization of drugs so that possession is not illegal, and 'the war on drugs' is eliminated in favor of an approach that goes against dealers and smugglers, not everyday users.  I agree that turning a medical problem into a criminal one doesn't help anyone or anything, and the 'war on drugs' is a failed pursuit which was neither practical nor noble.

This should be about expanding rights, not exploiting vulnerable people to increase profits.  If you want to raise government revenue, jack up taxes on the rich.  I'll vote for it.

[DownWithTheLeft]

We shouldn't be considering legalizing drugs for economic reasons.  If the purpose here is to exploit drug users and effectively establish a tax on the poor, I am not interested.  I am more interested in the gradual decriminalization of drugs so that possession is not illegal, and 'the war on drugs' is eliminated in favor of an approach that goes against dealers and smugglers, not everyday users.  I agree that turning a medical problem into a criminal one doesn't help anyone or anything, and the 'war on drugs' is a failed pursuit which was neither practical nor noble.

This should be about expanding rights, not exploiting vulnerable people to increase profits.  If you want to raise government revenue, jack up taxes on the rich.  I'll vote for it.

This will be a step into legalizing drugs, but there is no way we can simply legalize them with no tax.  The tax is not excessive is similar to the tax on cigarettes.  Again, the price is still incredibly lower than the street price.  The fact these people will have to pay less reduces crime as they no longer must steal things to pay for their drugs.  What kind of tax rate would you propose?

[Ebowed]

I'm not particularly concerned with what the actual tax rate is, I'm more concerned with what the revenue will be used to fund, and what the officially designated purpose of the tax is.  If we have a "sin" tax here, I am simply not interested.  I won't vote for anything that has a sin tax in it.

If you stipulate that the tax funds can only be used to fund medical care related to drug use or something of that nature, I could possibly vote for keeping the tax.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I add a friendly amendment to Section 3 stating the following:

The taxes collected off sales of LSD shall be used to fund the Interstate Highway System

[Ebowed]

I add a friendly amendment to Section 3 stating the following:

The taxes collected off sales of LSD shall be used to fund the Interstate Highway System

I will certainly contest that addition as "friendly."

[DownWithTheLeft]

I add a friendly amendment to Section 3 stating the following:

The taxes collected off sales of LSD shall be used to fund the Interstate Highway System

I will certainly contest that addition as "friendly."

Why should we send the money to something that doesn't benefit anyone?

[Ebowed]

I add a friendly amendment to Section 3 stating the following:

The taxes collected off sales of LSD shall be used to fund the Interstate Highway System

I will certainly contest that addition as "friendly."

Why should we send the money to something that doesn't benefit anyone?

No, it's fine.  I gave you a chance to compromise and you didn't take it.  I'm not going to vote for this bill.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I add a friendly amendment to Section 3 stating the following:

The taxes collected off sales of LSD shall be used to fund the Interstate Highway System

I will certainly contest that addition as "friendly."

Why should we send the money to something that doesn't benefit anyone?

No, it's fine.  I gave you a chance to compromise and you didn't take it.  I'm not going to vote for this bill.

You didn't propose anything, you just gave a vague topic, so I picked something that was great for everyone.

[Ebowed]

You didn't propose anything, you just gave a vague topic, so I picked something that was great for everyone.

I thought it was clear that any revenue made from exploiting drug users should fund something that directly helps them.  Not some general hackish feel goodery that "benefits everyone"-- that fits the very definition of a sin tax.  If the tax doesn't help the people that the legalization of this drug will hurt, why is it there?

[DownWithTheLeft]

You didn't propose anything, you just gave a vague topic, so I picked something that was great for everyone.

I thought it was clear that any revenue made from exploiting drug users should fund something that directly helps them.  Not some general hackish feel goodery that "benefits everyone"-- that fits the very definition of a sin tax.  If the tax doesn't help the people that the legalization of this drug will hurt, why is it there?

It helps them, I'm sure they drive on the interstate highway system.  If you want the funds to go half to the Interstate Highway System and half to a Needle Exchange Program, I would be open to that.

[Ebowed]

It helps them, I'm sure they drive on the interstate highway system.  If you want the funds to go half to the Interstate Highway System and half to a Needle Exchange Program, I would be open to that.

Actually, if we're going to randomly peddle funds from drug use to transportation, I wouldn't vote for "boosting highways" or whatever the hell you're talking about, because I don't think we should be encouraging people to drive.  Of course, paying for public transportation would be much more ideal, but again I have to wonder what it has to do with legalizing LSD?

[DownWithTheLeft]

It helps them, I'm sure they drive on the interstate highway system.  If you want the funds to go half to the Interstate Highway System and half to a Needle Exchange Program, I would be open to that.

Actually, if we're going to randomly peddle funds from drug use to transportation, I wouldn't vote for "boosting highways" or whatever the hell you're talking about, because I don't think we should be encouraging people to drive.  Of course, paying for public transportation would be much more ideal, but again I have to wonder what it has to do with legalizing LSD?

Ok, we seem to be getting somewhere.  How does this work as an amendment
Sam I have withdrawn my previous amendment

To add a new clause to Section 3 stating:
1.) 50% of the newly collected tax shall go to funding a needle exchange program
2.) 50% of the newly collected tax shall go to the regions equally to be used for public transportation systems

[Ebowed]

How about this:

I withdraw my amendment to strike Clause 3 and replace it with the following:

Section 3: Taxation
1. Taxes on LSD will be 30% per ounce sold.  Individual regions may set their own taxes on LSD as they see fit.
2. Revenue raised from taxes on LSD and marijuana will be split evenly among the following two funds:
a.) Needle exchange programs
b.) Public transportation, to be distributed among regions as appropriate.

[DownWithTheLeft]

How about this:

I withdraw my amendment to strike Clause 3 and replace it with the following:

Section 3: Taxation
1. Taxes on LSD will be 30% per ounce.  Individual regions may set their own taxes on LSD as they see fit.
2. Revenue raised from taxes on LSD and marijuana will be split evenly among the following two funds:
a.) Needle exchange programs
b.) Public transportation, to be distributed among regions as appropriate.

I'll consider it friendly

[Keystone Phil]

The debate on taxation is meaningless to me. I oppose this bill no matter what.