BF2S Forums How to stimulate the economy: Legalise marijuana

Turquoise wrote:

Tell me why the tax argument doesn't work.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Tell me why the tax argument doesn't work.

See above, consumption is low, users will still grow their own or buy illegally.
Law enforcement costs and criminal finance are a different argument - changing either won't affect the economy.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-02-02 20:52:55)

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

, but it would surely save us on law enforcement costs and would remove a market from the hands of criminals.

I agree, to an extent. There would still be dealers out there but not the hardcore guys who do it solely for a living. They would be run out and dried up. It would save us a lot in Law enforcement costs for sure because it's one less thing for the cops to concern themselves with, amongst other reasons. However, one thing I think people are failing to realize is that the reason people commit crimes to get drug money would not change. Hard core fiends would still commit crimes to get money to purchase drugs, the source from which they get it is irrelevant. If anything there would be an increase in robbery and burlaries because there would no longer be a line of credit. Dealers give them the drug because they know the addict will do anything to pay them back, wether it be out of fear of getting their ass kicked or just being cut off. My point is if they are addicted they will do whatever it takes except the "street" code of take now pay later would be eliminated causing addicts to posses the knowledge to resort to crime as their first option, instead of a last resort.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not addictive to me, or anyone else I know.
The good news is tokers never seem able to come up with a convincing argument for legalisation, or a convincing argument for anything else for that matter

If dope were legalised I can't see it stimulating the economy.
More likely lead to more car crashes, days off work, people being less productive if they make it to work etc.
The economic argument on tax doesn't stack up either.

As far as balance of trade goes, pretty sure its the dealers making the most, farmers in Mexico, Morocco and Afghanistan probably don't see much of it.

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

What is the actual substance to this argument? It seems to me that all it suggests is that you can legalise and tax things for profit, and if that's the only reasoning that you have, I would have no trouble pointing out any number of examples derived from the same logic that would be absolutely abhorrent.

What's the case for legalising and taxing marijuana?

Three-fold.

1) Decrease law enforcement costs and instead generate government revenue via taxes.

2) Remove a market from criminals.

3) Make social policy more consistent with the theme of personal liberties.  Any supporter of smaller government has to ask themselves, what is the point of having government tell you what to do in your personal life?

Turquoise wrote:

All of these things apply better to marijuana than most other drugs because it is less addictive than many legal drugs like alcohol.

Also, the history of why the ban was put into place is actually quite racist.  We should be ashamed that we've upheld a law with such dubious origins for so long.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-02-03 14:40:47)

mikkel wrote:

The third, I can agree with. I have to say, though, that considering the way society has devolved in the past half century, I don't know if it can even handle a sudden, general legalisation based on the idea of greater personal liberties. I love the idea of personal freedom to do anything that wouldn't affect other people physically, but considering all the necessitated government involvement in unsustainable situations spawned by the opinions and actions of individuals, is today's society really ready for that? I don't think we can hold ourselves to these ideals.

If broad legalisation on these principles goes wrong, and requires government intervention, I don't see any other outcome than a social divide much larger than what we have today.

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

The third, I can agree with. I have to say, though, that considering the way society has devolved in the past half century, I don't know if it can even handle a sudden, general legalisation based on the idea of greater personal liberties. I love the idea of personal freedom to do anything that wouldn't affect other people physically, but considering all the necessitated government involvement in unsustainable situations spawned by the opinions and actions of individuals, is today's society really ready for that? I don't think we can hold ourselves to these ideals.

If broad legalisation on these principles goes wrong, and requires government intervention, I don't see any other outcome than a social divide much larger than what we have today.

I find it odd that you're arguing against this.  I thought you were really adamant about personal freedoms.  Remember our discussion about Gitmo?

Oh, I am. Completely. I just have a difficult time coming to terms with the potential of unleashing something upon a society that might not be able to handle it. It's not at all a doubt about my belief in the ideals associated with broad personal freedoms, but a doubt over how the vulnerable elements of society will handle it. A case of ideals conflicting with reality, and determining which should prevail.

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

The third, I can agree with. I have to say, though, that considering the way society has devolved in the past half century, I don't know if it can even handle a sudden, general legalisation based on the idea of greater personal liberties. I love the idea of personal freedom to do anything that wouldn't affect other people physically, but considering all the necessitated government involvement in unsustainable situations spawned by the opinions and actions of individuals, is today's society really ready for that? I don't think we can hold ourselves to these ideals.

If broad legalisation on these principles goes wrong, and requires government intervention, I don't see any other outcome than a social divide much larger than what we have today.

I find it odd that you're arguing against this.  I thought you were really adamant about personal freedoms.  Remember our discussion about Gitmo?

Oh, I am. Completely. I just have a difficult time coming to terms with the potential of unleashing something upon a society that might not be able to handle it. It's not at all a doubt about my belief in the ideals associated with broad personal freedoms, but a doubt over how the vulnerable elements of society will handle it. A case of ideals conflicting with reality, and determining which should prevail.

mikkel wrote:

uevjHEYFFQ wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Oh, I am. Completely. I just have a difficult time coming to terms with the potential of unleashing something upon a society that might not be able to handle it. It's not at all a doubt about my belief in the ideals associated with broad personal freedoms, but a doubt over how the vulnerable elements of society will handle it. A case of ideals conflicting with reality, and determining which should prevail.

Let the people decide what is best for them. Some will destroy their lives some won't. No person has any right to tell any other person what they can or cannot put into their own body.

Even if it has consequences affecting other people?

Dilbert_X wrote:

I thought you guys spent 20% of GDP on healthcare already, about 4 times higher than most other developed nations.

Letting people eat, drink and smoke their way to cancer, heart disease, obesity and diabetes doesn't seem a brilliant outcome for 'letting people make their own mistakes'.