The ironic thing is that I see people from the anti-smoking thread supporting Marijuana use here.
I have claimed Giratina
#1: Because they regulate tobacco, I think they probably would.
#2: We arrest the dealers and seize their drugs, possibly for redistribution. (Here's another simple solution: We introduce, commercially, a large variety of types of marijuana of varying strengths. We do this already with tobacco; cf. cigars, where you can probably find, if you look, all varieties from double claro all the way up through oscuro.)
#3: Use and possession, possibly cultivation if people actually get their hands on seeds.
Really, adjusting laws is probably less of a problem than you're implying, and absolutely not a reason to not legalize. Any costs will be paid for by the revenue generated by marijuana taxes and reduction in costs spend on regulation (because those costs will be reduced, unless the government ****s up REALLY badly).
Nice ad-hominem later, though. Why don't you ask Paul Armentano at NORML about that and find out how wrong you are. In fact, you don't have to: read these arguments. That's a lot of work and legit scientists on a case for something that's, in your words, "just [because they] want to get stoned and not have to worry about being thrown in jail for it."
Last edited by Mariya Shidou; 12th August 2011 at 8:11 PM.
Yes really. Maybe you didn't think your comments through very well but the budget for the war on drugs is outstanding. All to stop the import of it, the low level sell of it and street level use/possession of it. Make it legal and the need for black market trafficking greatly goes down as well as the need to stop it. Legalize it and we cut down on the need to try and jail non-violent "criminals." Coming up with new regulations wont take long. The government even with its habit of not ever doing anything constantly come up with hundred page proposals as if they are making instant mac. The tax argument you have isn't the DEA problem, it's an IRS problem and like the majority of other stuff bought and sold between street dealers will likely have a blind eye turned to them.
Legalizing it and taxing it fairly (as fairly as alcohol and cigarettes are currently being taxed) wouldn't be that challenging either. As far as black market home grown dealers are concerned... I'm sure the cooperation would capitalize much greater on legalized marijuana than a bunch of college kids growing it in their basements. Convenience would outweigh a few extra dollars in ones pocket.
Ash nazg durbatulűk, ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatulűk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Please avoid saying things like that.Originally Posted by Sakuma
Drugs are drugs; ban them all or find someway to use them in a safe manner (which really, no way is safe).
Why do we even need drugs anyway? All they do is hurt you. There's no significant "help" factor involved with any of these drugs, including Weed. there is nothing weed can do that a regular pharmaceutical drug can't.
Last edited by Zenotwapal; 12th August 2011 at 8:20 PM.
Why not have an option?Why do we even need drugs anyway? All they do is hurt you. There's no significant "help" factor involved with any of these drugs, including Weed. there is nothing weed can do that a regular pharmaceutical drug can't.
Also, if all drugs do is hurt, do you agree that alcohol and tobacco should be illegal?
I'd also like to point out that driving under the influence covers ALL substances that impair ones judgement, not just alcohol. So it would apply to THC, thus making driving while smoking still illegal.
They do, however, both cause lung damage. The health effects of tobacco and marijuana are, mind you, significantly different. And, from information I have, not bad enough to really justify illegalization of marijuana while tobacco is perfectly legal.
It would be good in some ways, but some idiots will end up smoking it.
Snake? Snake? Snaaaaaaake!!!
Really, that's not gonna change.