Good lord. Legalize it and tax it.

What is so hard about that?

Swiss chocolate and MJ?

Imagine the special brownies!

When Denver legalized it, I doubt the tourism changed at all. I doubt Switzerland will be taking any of the insignificant tourism that vacations purely for legal pot from Holland.

Say what you will about Massachusetts and its crazy Liberal bent, but I was proud to see them decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. It doesn't make sense to send a recreational user to jail at the state's expense then fark up their future by giving them a CORI record. The cops have more important things to work on.

Impeach Bush!

Don't worry, Obama will take care of it.

Quantumbunny: When Denver legalized it, I doubt the tourism changed at all. I doubt Switzerland will be taking any of the insignificant tourism that vacations purely for legal pot from Holland.

When states "legalize" it, the federal law remains unchanged. California dispenseriy owners have been jailed, in spite of obeying California law to the letter.

When a country in Europe changes their local laws, they don't have to worry about being invalidated by tv EU (yet).

They are also voting on whether to put into law their heroin clinics experiment where junkies can go for their fix. Said junkies also hold down jobs and raise families much like anybody else. The average age of the junkies is 40 and seeing them lining up for their fixes has the effect of making heroin uncool amongst the young.Drug-related crime is down as well. I say go for it Switzerland and while you're at it make yodelling illegal.

I now see that my comment is superfluous given the article posted earlier. Thanks for that Modmins.

The swiss don't really pay attention to their current MJ laws anyway.

I went to Zurich 5 years ago and saw at least half a dozen outdoor gardens on the way from the airport. I got handed a joint staning in line for the ATM, and we smoked on the steps of the cop station, with a cop.

And Hanf House is freaking *awesome*. Everything hemp imaginable - gummy bears, energy drinks, pasta, cooking oil...you name it, they have it.

Swiss Miss Approves

docfate: Good lord. Legalize it and tax it.

What is so hard about that?

The fact that taxation from legalization isn't enough of an economic factor is a start.

Somehow I knew before I clicked..

I've still yet to hear a good reason not for it to be legal.

Lucidz: docfate: Good lord. Legalize it and tax it.

What is so hard about that?

The fact that taxation from legalization isn't enough of an economic factor is a start.

Because vice taxes create as much of a Black Market as banning something, with much less risk to the supplier.

Legalize it, and tax it normally.

Lucidz: docfate: Good lord. Legalize it and tax it.

What is so hard about that?

The fact that taxation from legalization isn't enough of an economic factor is a start.

What do you mean?

Looking for some numbers from a teeny tiny place like Holland, has given me this.

The Dutch tax authority receives some EUR 400 million on value added tax (VAT) originating from the sale of the soft drugs sold in local coffeeshops.

Total turnover in the soft drugs business is around EUR 2 billion, a figure comparable to the turnover of Dutch public transport.

Now, the way I see it, if a tiny little country like Holland can make $800 million(at the time, now more like 550 million) would that mean billions for a country like the US? Are you saying billions of dollars isn't enough of an economic factor?

Quantumbunny: Lucidz: docfate: Good lord. Legalize it and tax it.

What is so hard about that?

The fact that taxation from legalization isn't enough of an economic factor is a start.

What do you mean?

Looking for some numbers from a teeny tiny place like Holland, has given me this.

The Dutch tax authority receives some EUR 400 million on value added tax (VAT) originating from the sale of the soft drugs sold in local coffeeshops.

Total turnover in the soft drugs business is around EUR 2 billion, a figure comparable to the turnover of Dutch public transport.

Now, the way I see it, if a tiny little country like Holland can make $800 million(at the time, now more like 550 million) would that mean billions for a country like the US? Are you saying billions of dollars isn't enough of an economic factor?

I know billions sound like a lot of money but it really isnt in the scope of the national debt/income. Honestly it wouldn't make any impact at all. Based on my math, legalization would have around a 2-3 billion dollar impact (at the very very loosest). If you look at the affected industries, defense, prison system, etc expenditures, its impact is negligible. Take into account the jobs employed by its continued illicit status, and the fact that the majority of americans still think it should be illegal, and its not getting legalized.

Sorry. Keep in mind, I'm not expressing an opinion, only fact.

Ever tried to yodel sober?

StampedingElephant: Lucidz: docfate: Good lord. Legalize it and tax it.

What is so hard about that?

The fact that taxation from legalization isn't enough of an economic factor is a start.

Because vice taxes create as much of a Black Market as banning something, with much less risk to the supplier.

Legalize it, and tax it normally.

If its taxed "normally", then the financial impact is even less. It would have to be taxed at about 50x the taxation amount of tobacco to have enough of a financial impact to make even the most liberal lobbyist want to take a stab at legalization.

Lucidz: StampedingElephant: Lucidz: docfate: Good lord. Legalize it and tax it.

What is so hard about that?

The fact that taxation from legalization isn't enough of an economic factor is a start.

Because vice taxes create as much of a Black Market as banning something, with much less risk to the supplier.

Legalize it, and tax it normally.

If its taxed "normally", then the financial impact is even less. It would have to be taxed at about 50x the taxation amount of tobacco to have enough of a financial impact to make even the most liberal lobbyist want to take a stab at legalization.


I don't get how this is the case. It's a product millions of people already use. It is grown on easy-to-produce plants that can yield pounds of it, yet it is sold in quantities as small as a gram, for a very steep price compared to other raw plant matter. It has been illegal for years, so if it was legalized, people would be willing to pay a premium for the convenience. How is this not a prime opportunity for profitable taxation?

skabbo: Lucidz: StampedingElephant: Lucidz: docfate: Good lord. Legalize it and tax it.

What is so hard about that?

The fact that taxation from legalization isn't enough of an economic factor is a start.

Because vice taxes create as much of a Black Market as banning something, with much less risk to the supplier.

Legalize it, and tax it normally.

If its taxed "normally", then the financial impact is even less. It would have to be taxed at about 50x the taxation amount of tobacco to have enough of a financial impact to make even the most liberal lobbyist want to take a stab at legalization.


I don't get how this is the case. It's a product millions of people already use. It is grown on easy-to-produce plants that can yield pounds of it, yet it is sold in quantities as small as a gram, for a very steep price compared to other raw plant matter. It has been illegal for years, so if it was legalized, people would be willing to pay a premium for the convenience. How is this not a prime opportunity for profitable taxation?

If you are growing it yourself, taxation doesn't enter into it, the government collects nothing. If you're growing it mass produced, then it will be taxed. The only way it can have any impact financially is if it is taxed incredibly heavily. If it is taxed heavily, then you will grow it yourself or a black market will form, meaning it has no impact yet again.

The only way for it to have any possible financial impact is to tax it so heavily, that honestly, no one will buy it legally. Back to square 1.

Lucidz: I know billions sound like a lot of money but it really isnt in the scope of the national debt/income. Honestly it wouldn't make any impact at all. Based on my math, legalization would have around a 2-3 billion dollar impact (at the very very loosest). If you look at the affected industries, defense, prison system, etc expenditures, its impact is negligible. Take into account the jobs employed by its continued illicit status, and the fact that the majority of americans still think it should be illegal, and its not getting legalized.

Sorry. Keep in mind, I'm not expressing an opinion, only fact.

I am not trying to claim marijuana will single handedly solve our national debt. That would be daft. But let's assume 3 billion in new taxes. Many estimates put California at $175 million per year with a standard sales tax. You tax it like you tax cigarettes, and it would be a few billion in that state alone.

Link: 94,000 out of 180,000 federal prisonsers in 2004 were in for drug offenses. 250,00 of 1,250,000 state prisoners. Overall, about a third of criminals in prison, are on minor drug charges. States alone use over $6 billion a year handling prisoners, and $5.4 billion federally. Lop off a third of that, you gain another $4 billion from the penal system alone.

I can't even begin to estimate the budget impact of cops doing something far more useful than trying to track down Timmy the first time pot smoker, or the cost of trials in the justice system for minor possession and use, paraphernalia, etc.

Thus far you are looking at a net worth of over 10 billion dollars, surely that's worth something from a monetary standpoint.

I must conclude your feelings aren't against it because it won't generate revenue... hell many states have taxes that generate virtually no money. I can think of numerous that gain only in the hundreds of thousands, and some that actually lose money by end of processing and collecting. Sadly, I can't cite a source here, but because I work as a consultant for tax departments, I can tell you it is true. Regardless, something that makes billions has to be worth taxing. Are you sure you aren't against it for moral or other reasons?

Quantumbunny: Lucidz: I know billions sound like a lot of money but it really isnt in the scope of the national debt/income. Honestly it wouldn't make any impact at all. Based on my math, legalization would have around a 2-3 billion dollar impact (at the very very loosest). If you look at the affected industries, defense, prison system, etc expenditures, its impact is negligible. Take into account the jobs employed by its continued illicit status, and the fact that the majority of americans still think it should be illegal, and its not getting legalized.

Sorry. Keep in mind, I'm not expressing an opinion, only fact.

I am not trying to claim marijuana will single handedly solve our national debt. That would be daft. But let's assume 3 billion in new taxes. Many estimates put California at $175 million per year with a standard sales tax. You tax it like you tax cigarettes, and it would be a few billion in that state alone.

Link: 94,000 out of 180,000 federal prisonsers in 2004 were in for drug offenses. 250,00 of 1,250,000 state prisoners. Overall, about a third of criminals in prison, are on minor drug charges. States alone use over $6 billion a year handling prisoners, and $5.4 billion federally. Lop off a third of that, you gain another $4 billion from the penal system alone.

I can't even begin to estimate the budget impact of cops doing something far more useful than trying to track down Timmy the first time pot smoker, or the cost of trials in the justice system for minor possession and use, paraphernalia, etc.

Thus far you are looking at a net worth of over 10 billion dollars, surely that's worth something from a monetary standpoint.

I must conclude your feelings aren't against it because it won't generate revenue... hell many states have taxes that generate virtually no money. I can think of numerous that gain only in the hundreds of thousands, and some that actually lose money by end of processing and collecting. Sadly, I can't cite a source here, but because I work as a consultant for tax departments, I can tell you it is true. Regardless, something that makes billions has to be worth taxing. Are you sure you aren't against it for moral or other reasons?

Citations needed. Everything you've just said is speculation with no hard facts. However, I've done all the leg work for you with actual citations and numbers:

http://tnh1.businessnetonline.com/economy.html

Interestingly enough I too use Drugwarfacts in my citations and I got MUCH different information from it...

Can I still stick my finger in a dyke?

Anyone here ever worked / lived in the land of Swiss Miss? I've heard that unless you are either: a) ultra rich or b) born there,

Then the land of Swiss Miss doesn't want your ass.

/ wants Swiss Miss
// in the land of Swiss Miss

Lucidz: Citations needed. Everything you've just said is speculation with no hard facts. However, I've done all the leg work for you with actual citations and numbers:

http://tnh1.businessnetonline.com/economy.html

Interestingly enough I too use Drugwarfacts in my citations and I got MUCH different information from it...
How did you get different information from the same source? Everything I cited was accurate and taken directly.

Here is another.
This has some useful numbers for California. Your link shows an estimated 5 million people with citation needed, and will not account for those who will start if truly legalized nor does it really get into the money. My link shows numbers for current with purely medical use being between 90 and 175 million, jumping to maybe 2 billion when legalized fully. Another few links agree.

There is a lot of history involved. But marijuana was taxed in the US before. It was just done in an unjust and unconstitutional way.

Here is a link showing 23 billion dollar surplus.

I think I have provided more than enough to prove legalizing marijuana would be beneficial for budget reasons. Can you show me ANY sources showing otherwise? Or are you arguing for other reasons and unwilling to admit it?

MBA Whore: Anyone here ever worked / lived in the land of Swiss Miss? I've heard that unless you are either: a) ultra rich or b) born there,

Then the land of Swiss Miss doesn't want your ass.

/ wants Swiss Miss
// in the land of Swiss Miss

I've worked there. It's possible to get assignments there but you are right -- they don't want you there for long.

If you can afford it, it's a great country. I love Geneva and the Alps. And 3 types women (French, German, Italian) in varying blends. Really nice.

Lucidz: docfate: Good lord. Legalize it and tax it.

What is so hard about that?

The fact that taxation from legalization isn't enough of an economic factor is a start.

That all depends on how much they tax it. Think about it: People already pay somewheres in the neighborhood of $250 for an ounce (give or take a hundred or so), yet the shiat is basically free to grow. Yea, if you want really good shiat, you have to have it grown indoor under lights with timers, etc., but the cost is still very low. But people are already conditioned to paying a massive amount for their pot. Now if it all of a sudden became legal, but at half the price, you are trying to tell me that the tax revenue would be insignificant? Not only would it provide jobs, but also could provide a significant amount of taxes for the government (not that I am for all of my pot money going to the government, but I'd sure be happy if it became legal so I could grow my own).

/someone get that map of Please, Niger out

Cheesy Rat: Lucidz: docfate: Good lord. Legalize it and tax it.

What is so hard about that?

The fact that taxation from legalization isn't enough of an economic factor is a start.

That all depends on how much they tax it. Think about it: People already pay somewheres in the neighborhood of $250 for an ounce (give or take a hundred or so), yet the shiat is basically free to grow. Yea, if you want really good shiat, you have to have it grown indoor under lights with timers, etc., but the cost is still very low. But people are already conditioned to paying a massive amount for their pot. Now if it all of a sudden became legal, but at half the price, you are trying to tell me that the tax revenue would be insignificant? Not only would it provide jobs, but also could provide a significant amount of taxes for the government (not that I am for all of my pot money going to the government, but I'd sure be happy if it became legal so I could grow my own).

/someone get that map of Please, Niger out

If you grow your own, what jobs are created? How is it taxed?

Oh right, it wouldn't be.

Quantumbunny: Lucidz: Citations needed. Everything you've just said is speculation with no hard facts. However, I've done all the leg work for you with actual citations and numbers:

http://tnh1.businessnetonline.com/economy.html

Interestingly enough I too use Drugwarfacts in my citations and I got MUCH different information from it...
How did you get different information from the same source? Everything I cited was accurate and taken directly.

I got different information because my document surmises that the amount of money spent on keeping pot smokers behind bars accounts for 1/2 of 1% of the total prison budget.

Read my link.

Here is another.
This has some useful numbers for California. Your link shows an estimated 5 million people with citation needed, and will not account for those who will start if truly legalized nor does it really get into the money.
Why do you think the number of people will skyrocket once its legal? Legality is not something keeping marijuana from being consumed. Its already easy to get ahold of, I don't see any reason for a jump in use after legalization...

Also, the reason I have still said it needs citation is because theres NO hard evidence on how many people use it daily. The closest you can come is 6% of americans have tried it in the last month. Even taking 6% as a number, its pathetically small, compared with say tobacco which has an over 20% usage rate.

My link shows numbers for current with purely medical use being between 90 and 175 million, jumping to maybe 2 billion when legalized fully. Another few links agree.

WHAT? 90 and 175 million WHAT? Are you talking about income? I KNOW you're not talking about 90 million PEOPLE. FYA: "The report estimated that between 150,000 and 350,000 Californian".

2 billion people using mj? Thats 1/3 of the world population. Dude there are only 225 million americans over the age of 18 (IE: Legal age to smoke pot if legal)

Here is a link showing 23 billion dollar surplus.

I think I have provided more than enough to prove legalizing marijuana would be beneficial for budget reasons. Can you show me ANY sources showing otherwise? Or are you arguing for other reasons and unwilling to admit it?

Linking to an article which doesn't cite anything is not a citation. They pull a bunch of random numbers out of their ass. Where the hell did that 11 billion number come from? Further, how the fark do you get from saying that we spend 11 billion on MJ per year but you can generate 23 billion per year from that? WHAT? How do you take the amount made from the product and generate twice that in "additional revenue".

Also, where have I ever said I'm against legalization. I'm just saying that arguing it from a financial standpoint makes people look stupid.

Lucidz: Quantumbunny: Lucidz: Citations needed. Everything you've just said is speculation with no hard facts. However, I've done all the leg work for you with actual citations and numbers:

http://tnh1.businessnetonline.com/economy.html

Interestingly enough I too use Drugwarfacts in my citations and I got MUCH different information from it...
How did you get different information from the same source? Everything I cited was accurate and taken directly.

I got different information because my document surmises that the amount of money spent on keeping pot smokers behind bars accounts for 1/2 of 1% of the total prison budget.

Read my link.

Here is another.
This has some useful numbers for California. Your link shows an estimated 5 million people with citation needed, and will not account for those who will start if truly legalized nor does it really get into the money.
Why do you think the number of people will skyrocket once its legal? Legality is not something keeping marijuana from being consumed. Its already easy to get ahold of, I don't see any reason for a jump in use after legalization...

Also, the reason I have still said it needs citation is because theres NO hard evidence on how many people use it daily. The closest you can come is 6% of americans have tried it in the last month. Even taking 6% as a number, its pathetically small, compared with say tobacco which has an over 20% usage rate.

My link shows numbers for current with purely medical use being between 90 and 175 million, jumping to maybe 2 billion when legalized fully. Another few links agree.

WHAT? 90 and 175 million WHAT? Are you talking about income? I KNOW you're not talking about 90 million PEOPLE. FYA: "The report estimated that between 150,000 and 350,000 Californian".

2 billion people using mj? Thats 1/3 of the world population. Dude there are only 225 million americans over the age of 18 (IE: Legal age to smoke pot if legal)

Here is a link showing 23 billion dollar surplus.

I think I have provided more than enough to prove legalizing marijuana would be beneficial for budget reasons. Can you show me ANY sources showing otherwise? Or are you arguing for other reasons and unwilling to admit it?

Linking to an article which doesn't cite anything is not a citation. They pull a bunch of random numbers out of their ass. Where the hell did that 11 billion number come from? Further, how the fark do you get from saying that we spend 11 billion on MJ per year but you can generate 23 billion per year from that? WHAT? How do you take the amount made from the product and generate twice that in "additional revenue".

Also, where have I ever said I'm against legalization. I'm just saying that arguing it from a financial standpoint makes people look stupid.

The only thing I have been talking about is MONEY. Not users. Every figure was listed as money in the associated link, and meant as such.

It isn't like it would be a huge financial boon to the tune of fixing a broken economy, but thinking billions of dollars in state and federal revenue is insignificant, or worthless shows more ignorance on your part than those arguing the benefits of a few billion dollars in tax revenue. People don't wish to legalize marijuana purely for profit, there are many other reasons. It's just a single benefit saving billions in tax spending, and making billions in taxes. Discounting that is more foolish than admitting it is a useful windfall from what is already unjust legislation.

Anywho, feel free to belittle billions, I have already more than proven the monetary point, and feel no need to continue until you can show otherwise.

Sigh. You don't get it do you? When MJ constitutes half of one percent of prison funding, .0002 of federal debt, and makes no discernible impact on agricultural infrastructure, it will NOT BE LEGALIZED.

Yes, its a few billion. I say around 2.5 billion, your retarded source goes from 11 billion to 23 billion using magic math. Regardless, even if it WAS that much, (which by the way, no farking way), it means NOTHING on a national scale.

Yes, 3 billion dollars seems like a LOT of money to you. Do you not realize thats only enough to buy one bomber plane for the us millitary?

Legalization of marijuana for one year would fund .2% of the cost of the war of iraq. Billions seem like a lot, but they aren't.

A few billion dollars constitutes a fraction of a fraction of financial impact on a national level.

You will never convince anyone on capital hill to fund legislation to legalize marijuana based on financial impact. You're making me sound like a broken record here, I just don't know how else to explain it to you.

The government can appeal to fundies by keeping it illegal. Do you honestly think some representative is going to step up and piss off 50% of the country for 1 half of 1 % of anything? fark no.

You all are failing to consider the most significant economic gain from legalizing. The people currently in prison would largely be working, contributing to the economy, if they weren't in prison. If there were 400,000 people in prison for drugs (pulled out of my ass but probably not too far off), if those people made on average 30k/year, they would contribute 12 billion dollars to the economy. The government would make a few billion in taxes off of that income and even more in sales tax and corporate taxes for the increased production due to those people.

Lucidz: Sigh. You don't get it do you? When MJ constitutes half of one percent of prison funding, .0002 of federal debt, and makes no discernible impact on agricultural infrastructure, it will NOT BE LEGALIZED.

Yes, its a few billion. I say around 2.5 billion, your retarded source goes from 11 billion to 23 billion using magic math. Regardless, even if it WAS that much, (which by the way, no farking way), it means NOTHING on a national scale.

Yes, 3 billion dollars seems like a LOT of money to you. Do you not realize thats only enough to buy one bomber plane for the us millitary?

Legalization of marijuana for one year would fund .2% of the cost of the war of iraq. Billions seem like a lot, but they aren't.

A few billion dollars constitutes a fraction of a fraction of financial impact on a national level.

You will never convince anyone on capital hill to fund legislation to legalize marijuana based on financial impact. You're making me sound like a broken record here, I just don't know how else to explain it to you.

The government can appeal to fundies by keeping it illegal. Do you honestly think some representative is going to step up and piss off 50% of the country for 1 half of 1 % of anything? fark no.

Also, just one more number to piss on your argument:

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3.86 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

We're hemoraging more money DAILY onto our national debt than an entire YEAR of legalization of marijuana would make.

Try convincing ANYONE that legalization of MJ will make any difference whatsoever. If it made sense, it would have already been done.

6% of the population, most of which probably do not vote, is not enough of a voice to account for the 50% fundamental christian population who DOES, without fail vote, especially considering the monetary insignificance of legalization.

dooder0001: You all are failing to consider the most significant economic gain from legalizing. The people currently in prison would largely be working, contributing to the economy, if they weren't in prison. If there were 400,000 people in prison for drugs (pulled out of my ass but probably not too far off), if those people made on average 30k/year, they would contribute 12 billion dollars to the economy. The government would make a few billion in taxes off of that income and even more in sales tax and corporate taxes for the increased production due to those people.

I'm not even going to bother poking holes into that kind of ridiculous logic. But let me make 3 points...

1. Its still a game of percentages. 400,000 people is 1/10th of 1% of working age americans. That is not a big enough percent to give a shiat about. Sorry.

2. How many of those people are in PRISON for simply being a stoner? I've never known anyone who got caught for simple possession who went to PRISON. A night in jail maybe, community service sure.. Prison? Hardly. Trafficers and people transporting massive amounts go to prison.

3. You admit youre pulling numbers out of your ass. That is simultaneously why its impossible to argue with a pothead and why it will never be legalized. Regurgitating "facts" and "numbers' from your time sitting around the kitchen table toking up does not win any points with the legislators. Wanna get serious about making arguments, do some actual research. Until then, you're a part of the problem, not the solution. (Not saying you in particular are a pot head)

More directly in response to Lucidz, when you combine a few billion in MJ taxes, a few billion cut from law enforcement and prisons, and a few billion in additional taxes due to more people participating in the economy, you could easily end up with over $10 billion. The federal budget is about 2.7 trillion so $10 billion would expand the budget by .37%. I'd call that significant.

Lucidz
1. Its still a game of percentages. 400,000 people is 1/10th of 1% of working age americans. That is not a big enough percent to give a shiat about. Sorry.
When unemployment goes up or down by 400,000 people, it's in the news.

2. How many of those people are in PRISON for simply being a stoner? I've never known anyone who got caught for simple possession who went to PRISON. A night in jail maybe, community service sure.. Prison? Hardly. Trafficers and people transporting massive amounts go to prison.
Yes, people go to prison for possession. It's very common actually.

3. You admit youre pulling numbers out of your ass. That is simultaneously why its impossible to argue with a pothead and why it will never be legalized. Regurgitating "facts" and "numbers' from your time sitting around the kitchen table toking up does not win any points with the legislators. Wanna get serious about making arguments, do some actual research. Until then, you're a part of the problem, not the solution. (Not saying you in particular are a pot head)
You can decrease those numbers by a factor of 10 and the point still holds. I was giving numbers as an example. Feel free to consult your source and calculate your own.

dooder0001: More directly in response to Lucidz, when you combine a few billion in MJ taxes, a few billion cut from law enforcement and prisons, and a few billion in additional taxes due to more people participating in the economy, you could easily end up with over $10 billion. The federal budget is about 2.7 trillion so $10 billion would expand the budget by .37%. I'd call that significant.

I've done the figures using realistic numbers including taxation from legalization, law enforcement and prisons as well as economic impact and came up with 2.86 billion. (Those numbers were all very generous mind you)

But I'll use your 10 billion number for arguments sake. You're correct that the national budget is 2.789 trillion per year. But keep in mind, that we're accumulating around 1.5 trillion per year in debt. So actual expenditures are around 4.3 billion per year.

So thats 1/5th of 1% of our yearly expenditures. I just really don't see that carrying enough weight to get over all the other problems with legalization.

Lucidz:
1. Its still a game of percentages. 400,000 people is 1/10th of 1% of working age americans. That is not a big enough percent to give a shiat about. Sorry.

This just isn't true. The entire US population is around 300 million - the "working age" population is around 2/3 of that. There are over half a million people incarcerated in the US for drug offenses alone. There is no way for you to spin that into an insignificant number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
http: //stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/409/toohigh.shtml

skabbo: Lucidz:
1. Its still a game of percentages. 400,000 people is 1/10th of 1% of working age americans. That is not a big enough percent to give a shiat about. Sorry.

This just isn't true. The entire US population is around 300 million - the "working age" population is around 2/3 of that. There are over half a million people incarcerated in the US for drug offenses alone. There is no way for you to spin that into an insignificant number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
http: //stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/409/toohigh.shtml

urm, its not true? there are 225,000,000 million working age americans.

400,000 / 225,000,000 = .0017

Thats 1/10th of one percent. ..... ??? Math not your strong suit?

Ok, 2/10 of 1%, going by the DoJ's 500,000 statistic, but my emphasis is more "there's no way to claim that as insignificant". Half a million jobs makes a significant impact on the economy, as does keeping half a million people incarcerated.

"The hills are alive with the sound of music. (new window)"
Ah, a western wind made that happen!

So, your argument is it is ok to piss away money because you have got enough?
Man, i bet you don´t run a bussines of your own.

But with the economy as it is now, maybe you are a banker?
Would explain a lot...

skabbo: Ok, 2/10 of 1%, going by the DoJ's 500,000 statistic, but my emphasis is more "there's no way to claim that as insignificant". Half a million jobs makes a significant impact on the economy, as does keeping half a million people incarcerated.

You're assuming that the 400,000 stupid enough to get caught with enough pot to go to prison even held real jobs...

I don't know a lot of guys who aren't hourly workers who drive around with a brick of hash in their trunk,

Lucidz: The only way for it to have any possible financial impact is to tax it so heavily, that honestly, no one will buy it legally. Back to square 1.

wow, you're retarded.

a pack of cigarettes runs $8 in Chicago, yet I don't see people growing their own tobacco.

I'd be willing to pay $20 for a pack of joints out of sheer convenience.

Shrooms are not hard drugs. This article is retarded.

derekste: Lucidz: The only way for it to have any possible financial impact is to tax it so heavily, that honestly, no one will buy it legally. Back to square 1.

wow, you're retarded.

a pack of cigarettes runs $8 in Chicago, yet I don't see people growing their own tobacco.

I'd be willing to pay $20 for a pack of joints out of sheer convenience.

Marijuana doesn't need to be processed after harvest, it just needs to be cured for, I think, a few days. Tobacco requires much more work, both in successfully growing it and processing it. Cannabis is a pretty hardy plant and will do well just about anywhere.

Lucidz: 400,000 people is 1/10th of 1% of working age americans.

The entire population of the US is 305 million. There are not 400 million working age people there.

Lucidz: Sigh. You don't get it do you? When MJ constitutes half of one percent of prison funding, .0002 of federal debt, and makes no discernible impact on agricultural infrastructure, it will NOT BE LEGALIZED.

Yes, its a few billion. I say around 2.5 billion, your retarded source goes from 11 billion to 23 billion using magic math. Regardless, even if it WAS that much, (which by the way, no farking way), it means NOTHING on a national scale.

Yes, 3 billion dollars seems like a LOT of money to you. Do you not realize thats only enough to buy one bomber plane for the us millitary?

Legalization of marijuana for one year would fund .2% of the cost of the war of iraq. Billions seem like a lot, but they aren't.

A few billion dollars constitutes a fraction of a fraction of financial impact on a national level.

You will never convince anyone on capital hill to fund legislation to legalize marijuana based on financial impact. You're making me sound like a broken record here, I just don't know how else to explain it to you.

The government can appeal to fundies by keeping it illegal. Do you honestly think some representative is going to step up and piss off 50% of the country for 1 half of 1 % of anything? fark no.

The Iraq war is costing about 50 billion a year, actually. Anything over that goes to research and general readiness in case we have to fight a bigger opponent - like say Russia or China. So 3 billion would be around 6%. Still not a big fan of legalizing weed, however - it may not be that harmful itself, but stops being as effective as time goes on and often leads to other drugs. It certainly shouldn't be legal before age 21.

Cigarettes, incidently, ought to be illegal. Short of that, anyone with a history of smoking should be barred from taxpayer-funded healthcare. Same for chronic drinkers and anything that can be traced back to a bad liver, or fat people who can't prove they have a thyroid condition or something similar. If you want to destroy your body, fine - but don't expect the rest of us to pay for it. Emergency care only, preferably at a teaching hospital.

I think the main reason that 'Weed leads to other drugs' is attributable to the fact that it is illegal. Recreational smokers are forced to either grow it themselves or purchase it illegally from a person who sells illegal drugs. Having to sneak around to purchase MJ can put a recreational user into contact with loads of unscrupulous and unsavory characters who may be motivated to try and push all sorts of other crap on their customers. If alcohol was illegal and had to be purchased from someone who sells illegal drugs, it would be classified in the same manner.

If MJ was made legal to purchase in a licensed establishment (just like beer is), I think that particular argument would cease to be a problem.