BF2S Forums Change I like (U.S. to yield marijuana jurisdiction to states)

mikkel wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

I've said this before, and I'll say it again.  No one has tried to refute it yet. 
If it is legalized and taxed, people will still buy the illegally grown stuff if it's cheaper, which it will be.  The amount of illegally grown Marijuana will greatly  increase, because police will stop wasting time trying to shut down marijuana growers.  The type of government he is trying to push will be weakened by the legalization of marijuana.  Some money would be made from taxes, but not enough to make up for the cost of medical care and the jobless potheads this would create.

Ding ding ding.

This is just more incentive for the illegal trade to grow. It's kinda like having a ban on blue cars, and then painting all cars blue and taxing them. What would you rather want? The cheap, untraceable, illegally made car, or the expensive, taxed legal car? Would you be at all afraid of selling the former?

Bullshit.

If this was true, then there would be more illegal trade in alcohol and tobacco as well.

Because neither of those trades saw an increase in illegal trade after legalization and taxation, your logic fails.

It's absurd to think the illegal trade would increase, because the profit margin would be much lower after legalization.  Most of the reason for the high value pot has is that it's contraband.  As soon as you legalize something, the value goes much lower than before.

Nice try though.

Dilbert_X wrote:

It can't be done state by state, its either national or not.
Look at the situation with Mexico, they don't have the resources or will to control it there, and it floods the whole US.

There are always going to be a small number of dipsticks who are going to use it, but there is no merit in letting the rest of the population think its safe and healthy.
If it were less harmful I'd say legalise it.
Let people grow their own in limited quantities and keep trade illegal.

If you're really too dumb or lazy to grow the easiest grown plant on earth then you probably shouldn't be taking decisions on self-medication.

As long as it's taxed, there should be no problem with the harm it causes, since it has no more harm to it than alcohol or tobacco.

Yeah I'd argue that booze is at the very least, equally 'harmful' to society, and it's legal. I also can't think of any real medicinal value there
It's funny people who characterize pot users as a bunch of deadbeat hippies. There are quite a few successfully employed people who use a bit; probably the majority.
Like anything else there are some who abuse, and some who can handle it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

As long as it's taxed, there should be no problem with the harm it causes, since it has no more harm to it than alcohol or tobacco.

Same argument applies to cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, crack etc.
Legalise and tax FTW!

Crack and Weed are very very very different things. Shit doesn't even compare. That's like comparing drinking vodka to jet fuel. Two are bad for ya, but which fucks you up more.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

As long as it's taxed, there should be no problem with the harm it causes, since it has no more harm to it than alcohol or tobacco.

Same argument applies to cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, crack etc.
Legalise and tax FTW!

Normally, a response like this would cause me to say you're on crack, but obviously, you've never done it, because if you did, you'd know that cocaine and weed are very different in their effects, level of danger, and damage to society.

Macbeth wrote:

I've said it before, to me it's not an issue of money, productivity, or civil law. It's an issue of rights. I think every person has the full right to decide to put whatever they want into their own body. Nobody here or in government has any right to tell anyone what they can or cannot put into their own body.

They have the right, that's the problem.

I just think it is an issue that the Pro's out weigh the Con's.
I think if you had a vote on this you would find that most people would rather just see it legal than pay more bullshit taxes and fees on other stuff.

Something you have to remember is that anything that you smoke is going to have bad effects.  What really needs to happen is a pharmaceutical company needs to extract the chemical that relieves pain and concentrate it in another non-smoke able form.  The main problems I have with people smoking marijuana are:
a) Like smoking tobacco, it stinks and it can affect my health.
b) We will have to pay, with our tax dollars, for the hospitalization the idiots who take it too far.

Harmour, that study is misleading.  In their pure forms maybe, but what you have to remember is that there are a number of chemicals added to tobacco during the preparation process, which introduce carcinogens to all processed tobacco.  When considering the results of that study, we must also consider dosage over time - gram for gram, people don't consume marijuana at the same rate as when smoking tobacco.

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Something you have to remember is that anything that you smoke is going to have bad effects.  What really needs to happen is a pharmaceutical company needs to extract the chemical that relieves pain and concentrate it in another non-smoke able form.  The main problems I have with people smoking marijuana are:
a) Like smoking tobacco, it stinks and it can affect my health.
b) We will have to pay, with our tax dollars, for the hospitalization the idiots who take it too far.

One company has produced some sort of THC spray, I'm unsure of its effects but as its been around for a while I can assume it's lack of prevelence means there are significant drawbacks.  I do recall people questioning its effectiveness.

a) If someone chooses to smoke marijuana in their own home, away from you, how does this affect your health?  How can you smell it?  I share your objections to tobacco, and when these conditions affect me I either let smokers know about it, or walk away.
b) Its incredibly hard to get into a state which requires medical attention on marijuana - more so than tobacco, alcohol or caffeine.

A question Deadmonkiefart, if you will.

Given the harm-based nature of your objections, how can you reconcile the legality of alcohol?  Does it not seem inconsistent to reject marijuana on the grounds of harm, given that alcohol is known to be far more harmful both to it's users (eg.alcoholism) and to those around it's users? (eg.drink driving crash victims, or victims of alcohol-fuelled attacks)

Last edited by Pubic (2009-03-02 22:08:00)

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Something you have to remember is that anything that you smoke is going to have bad effects.  What really needs to happen is a pharmaceutical company needs to extract the chemical that relieves pain and concentrate it in another non-smoke able form.  The main problems I have with people smoking marijuana are:
a) Like smoking tobacco, it stinks and it can affect my health.
b) We will have to pay, with our tax dollars, for the hospitalization the idiots who take it too far.

Fail. 

a) Secondhand marijuana smoke will NOT effect your health.  Worst you'll get is a contact high. 
b) It's IMPOSSIBLE to overdose on marijuana.  What about all the fratboys who waste our tax dollars by getting alcohol poisoning?

Society should embrace marijuana and demonize alcohol TBH.

Does this mean no more DEA harassment of vendors legal under California law?

Wreckognise wrote:

a) Secondhand marijuana smoke will NOT effect your health.  Worst you'll get is a contact high.

It will affect your health exactly the same as it affects the person smoking it.

b) It's IMPOSSIBLE to overdose on marijuana.  What about all the fratboys who waste our tax dollars by getting alcohol poisoning?

Its also IMPOSSIBLE to be tipped over the edge into schizophrenia by alcohol.

lol awesome