Blowout Cards Forums
Email Signup

Go Back   Blowout Cards Forums > COMMUNITY > Off Topic

Off Topic This section may contain threads that are NSFW. This section is given a bit of leeway on some of the rules and so you may see some mild language and even some risqué images. Please no threads about race, religion, politics, or sexual orientation. Please no self promotion, sign up, or fundraising threads.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-07-2012, 10:37 PM   #201 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 12,478
Default

Here is was I was trying to point out earlier before the attacks.
Legalize Marijuana for Tax Revenue - BusinessWeek

Quote:
CON: A FALSE ECONOMY
by Bob Stutman, the Stutman Group

Gee, how about collecting taxes from legalized marijuana as a way of helping to deal with the deficit? Sounds great. Doesn’t work.

There are about 170 million users of alcohol in the U.S. and 16 million users of marijuana. This 10-to-1 ratio is because alcohol is legal and marijuana is not. If we legalize marijuana, everyone (even anti-prohibitionists) agrees we will have far more users. Ooooh, just think of all that revenue. Except we already have a working model for a legal intoxicant we collect taxes for. Let’s see how well that works:

The latest studies show that the U.S. collects about $8 billion yearly in taxes from alcohol. The problem is, the total cost to the U.S. in 2008 due to alcohol-related problems was $185 billion, and the government pays about 38% of that cost (about $72 billion), all due to consequences of alcohol consumption, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & Alcholism. For every dollar the government collects in alcohol taxes, it expends about $9 (for such things as Medicare and Medicaid treatment for alcohol-related health troubles, long-term rehabilitation treatment, unemployment costs, and Welfare). Does that seem like a model for emulation?

The legalization of alcohol is grandfathered in, and it is unlikely that major changes will be made. The last thing we should do is replicate this irrational business model. True, even though studies show both drugs are similar, many believe alcohol is worse. But even if we only see half the damages with marijuana, we cannot ignore the math: $4.50 for every $1 we collect is not a good business model.
Orangejello727 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 10:39 PM   #202 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Iowa
Posts: 361
Default

how about the benefits to the overall economy? more money flowing helps all local businesses.... and sure people will take vacations there just to participate, but that also drops money into the economy,,, i dont know i havent read the thread in full but i believe economic benefits are great from this. will be interesting to compare economic figures in CO in 5 years.
bazinga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 10:49 PM   #203 (permalink)
Member
 
VWBUS1978's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SOUTH JERSEY
Posts: 5,705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
VW
You need to check out Utah sometime.
The liquor industry is state owned and operated.
18 states have ABC in effect but most offer contracts and licenses. Utah controls the whole thing.
I expect Colorado to do the same thing for the control and revenue. As I implied, I also expect big farming business to pay out the back-side for the agricultural rights. I expect other states to follow suit, I just hope mine is last.
i think i get your point, but utah doesn't produce all the liquor sold, right? they simply distribute, like Pennsylvania.

i would still be happy as it would be better off that way than staying illegal.

if the states creep in one by one and each one has different laws, i can hardly see the feds jumping in, disturbing already set in stone industries, businesses and jobs that are already taxed. so you can throw that notion out as well.
__________________
the fact that we exist, in a universe of sheer randomness, is scientific proof that there are aliens.
we are the aliens.
i can say that with 100% accuracy.
VWBUS1978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 10:56 PM   #204 (permalink)
Member
 
VWBUS1978's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SOUTH JERSEY
Posts: 5,705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangejello727 View Post
Here is was I was trying to point out earlier before the attacks.
Legalize Marijuana for Tax Revenue - BusinessWeek
noted. dually.

if this is true, increase the tax rates to match up to the actual costs. more $$$ involved + reduced use = problem solved. better yet, balance it the other way and actually make money for Uncle Sam.

with weed, if it is projected to have a $4.50:$1 ratio, make it $4.50:$6

that's 133% tax over cost, not including sale tax of course, and i (amongst 16 million others) would be glad to pay.

how's that for hashing it out. pun intended.
__________________
the fact that we exist, in a universe of sheer randomness, is scientific proof that there are aliens.
we are the aliens.
i can say that with 100% accuracy.
VWBUS1978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 11:09 PM   #205 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: illinois
Posts: 2,971
Default

The math in tax revenue doesnt factor in the $22 billion a year were going to save from enforcing marijuana laws. You cant overdose from pot and its illegal because of hemp from way back in the day. I hope its legalized in every state and the number that 16 million people smoke it is very off. A study done just last year showed that over 105 million people have smoked marijuana once or more in their life.
__________________
Sophomore at Depaul University!
chansen10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 11:14 PM   #206 (permalink)
Member
 
Gibberish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 6,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chansen10 View Post
The math in tax revenue doesnt factor in the $22 billion a year were going to save from enforcing marijuana laws. You cant overdose from pot and its illegal because of hemp from way back in the day. I hope its legalized in every state and the number that 16 million people smoke it is very off. A study done just last year showed that over 105 million people have smoked marijuana once or more in their life.
HAVE and DO are not the same.
I smoked weed way back when and now I would as soon drink from the toilet as take a toke .
__________________
I Collect Marbles,Amazing Spider-man comics and tears! Mr. Sensitivity at your service
Gibberish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 11:30 PM   #207 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: illinois
Posts: 2,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
HAVE and DO are not the same.
I smoked weed way back when and now I would as soon drink from the toilet as take a toke .
Yes clearly their not the same but when over 105 million people have tried it i find the number of 16 million people do smoke to be flawed. A rough estimate of close to 40-45 million people is more accurate
__________________
Sophomore at Depaul University!
chansen10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 11:35 PM   #208 (permalink)
Member
 
vwnut13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bazinga View Post
lol that would be a fun traffic stop
vwnut13 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 11:47 PM   #209 (permalink)
Member
 
Gibberish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 6,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chansen10 View Post
Yes clearly their not the same but when over 105 million people have tried it i find the number of 16 million people do smoke to be flawed. A rough estimate of close to 40-45 million people is more accurate
By what math ? Or is that gut feeling ?

Any statistic is going to be flawed, but you are going to the other end. I assume you are a fan of weed
Myself, I would like to go the other way.
__________________
I Collect Marbles,Amazing Spider-man comics and tears! Mr. Sensitivity at your service
Gibberish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 07:38 AM   #210 (permalink)
Boo
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 3,157
Default

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Voters in Washington and Colorado passed ballot initiatives Tuesday to legalize marijuana for recreational use, the biggest victory ever for the legalization movement.

"The significance of these events cannot be understated," said NORML, a pro-legalization organization, in a news release. "Tonight, for the first time in history, two states have legalized and regulated the adult use and sale of cannabis."

But in many ways, it's just the beginning of the battle. Marijuana is still illegal in the eyes of the federal government, which overrules states' rights. "The voters have spoken and we have to respect their will," said Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, in a statement. "This is a complicated process, but we intend to follow through. That said, federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug, so don't break out the Cheetos or goldfish too quickly."

The Drug Enforcement Administration reiterated its stance that marijuana is an illegal drug and that possessing, using or selling it is a crime. "The Drug Enforcement Administration's enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged," said the DEA in a press statement. "In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I control[ed] substance. The Department of Justice is reviewing the ballot initiatives and we have no additional comment at this time."

The Colorado U.S. Attorney's Office released an identical statement, saying that its position on marijuana as an illegal drug is "unchanged."
__________________
CheckOutMyCards ID = klay22

http://s1058.photobucket.com/albums/t403/klay22/
Boo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 07:46 AM   #211 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 12,478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VWBUS1978 View Post
noted. dually.

if this is true, increase the tax rates to match up to the actual costs. more $$$ involved + reduced use = problem solved. better yet, balance it the other way and actually make money for Uncle Sam.

with weed, if it is projected to have a $4.50:$1 ratio, make it $4.50:$6

that's 133% tax over cost, not including sale tax of course, and i (amongst 16 million others) would be glad to pay.

how's that for hashing it out. pun intended.
The problem with increasing taxes to make up for the social impact spending creates the black market again. Within that study they talk about how Canada produces pot at 33 cents a gram while black market sits at $10 a gram (something like that). The problem is economics. If you over tax it to make up for the spending needed on the social impact, you end up making it just as expensive as the street price. If you topple that with the notion that some have been peddling about people on pot will decrease usage, then it becomes even worse for taxation as the per unit drops once again while PSA and anti programs still run.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chansen10 View Post
The math in tax revenue doesnt factor in the $22 billion a year were going to save from enforcing marijuana laws. You cant overdose from pot and its illegal because of hemp from way back in the day. I hope its legalized in every state and the number that 16 million people smoke it is very off. A study done just last year showed that over 105 million people have smoked marijuana once or more in their life.
There is no distinction in how much the govt spends fighting marijuana. They do have a drug enforcement budget. This budget is spent on trying to curb all drugs. Taking pot out of the equation does not have that big of an impact. Without pot in the mix, there would still be a need for drug enforcement.

Also back to the theory that our prisons are filled with people with minimal pot possession charges? I still find it hard to believe that these people are in jail for having a joint on them. Most are cited and their joint is rubbed out. Thats a much different story if you are caught with 20 bricks in your trunk. Intent to sell, traffic, distribute levels do not equate to recreational use.
Orangejello727 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 08:32 AM   #212 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: illinois
Posts: 2,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangejello727 View Post
The problem with increasing taxes to make up for the social impact spending creates the black market again. Within that study they talk about how Canada produces pot at 33 cents a gram while black market sits at $10 a gram (something like that). The problem is economics. If you over tax it to make up for the spending needed on the social impact, you end up making it just as expensive as the street price. If you topple that with the notion that some have been peddling about people on pot will decrease usage, then it becomes even worse for taxation as the per unit drops once again while PSA and anti programs still run.




There is no distinction in how much the govt spends fighting marijuana. They do have a drug enforcement budget. This budget is spent on trying to curb all drugs. Taking pot out of the equation does not have that big of an impact. Without pot in the mix, there would still be a need for drug enforcement.

Also back to the theory that our prisons are filled with people with minimal pot possession charges? I still find it hard to believe that these people are in jail for having a joint on them. Most are cited and their joint is rubbed out. Thats a much different story if you are caught with 20 bricks in your trunk. Intent to sell, traffic, distribute levels do not equate to recreational use.
Your wrong the number i stated for you is how much we spend just enforcing marijuana laws no other drugs tie into that number.
__________________
Sophomore at Depaul University!
chansen10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 08:40 AM   #213 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 12,478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chansen10 View Post
Your wrong the number i stated for you is how much we spend just enforcing marijuana laws no other drugs tie into that number.
Can you give me link to that number from a credible site? 22 billion just for pot? Add another 30 or so other drugs and that would easily put the budget for drug enforcement in the hundreds of billions if not a trillion dollars.
Orangejello727 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 09:11 AM   #214 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: illinois
Posts: 2,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangejello727 View Post
Can you give me link to that number from a credible site? 22 billion just for pot? Add another 30 or so other drugs and that would easily put the budget for drug enforcement in the hundreds of billions if not a trillion dollars.
It's from a book when i get home ill open up the essay i wrote and get the name of the book. My number of 22 maybe off now that i think of it i believe it's 15. Im not talking about just the DEA I'm talking big picture. Time in courts, prison and enforcing it in general.
__________________
Sophomore at Depaul University!
chansen10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 09:25 AM   #215 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 12,478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chansen10 View Post
It's from a book when i get home ill open up the essay i wrote and get the name of the book. My number of 22 maybe off now that i think of it i believe it's 15. Im not talking about just the DEA I'm talking big picture. Time in courts, prison and enforcing it in general.
Im willing to bet a large portion of that number is attributed to loss of oppurtunity to taxation. Many reports do this. They associate the cost of enforcement with the addition of tax implications. I think its wrong. You cant say we spend XX billions on pot enforcement because we dont bring in XX billion in tax revenues from it. Let me know that source when you get a chance.

Heres the other part to it. Say you cut down the number needed to enforce, court time, prison etc.. Do you think it will just go away? That nothing will come along? That because there are no margins in pot, criminals will not adjust and find a new stream? There is a stark difference in cutting one source to save $$ vs the mentality on thinking that it wont kick start something else that would need to be enforced. This is how drugs like Meth surfaced. They adapted to changes and started finding alternative ways of making narcotics because control of poppies, hemp etc were all out of their reach.
Orangejello727 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 11:12 AM   #216 (permalink)
Member
 
VWBUS1978's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SOUTH JERSEY
Posts: 5,705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangejello727 View Post
This is how drugs like Meth surfaced. They adapted to changes and started finding alternative ways of making narcotics because control of poppies, hemp etc were all out of their reach.
there are only so many hard drug users. if there is only 16 million daily pot-smokers, how many hard drug users are there? probably 2-4 million, maybe? so, right now, there are 20 million people paying these criminals to produce and run drugs.

take away 80% of their revenue and what happens?

by legalizing pot, you're cutting off their largest stream of revenue and putting full control into the hands of the people in this country.

the revenue would continue, but instead of feeding the families of criminals, you're feeding your neighbor's family.

no offense, but in your world of prohibition on pot, the criminals will continue to remain in control of that revenue, as well as have the huge extra incentive to run pot and other drugs together. this is not going to end, unless something is done to curb it. the obvious, easiest and cheapest way to curb it is legalization.
__________________
the fact that we exist, in a universe of sheer randomness, is scientific proof that there are aliens.
we are the aliens.
i can say that with 100% accuracy.
VWBUS1978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 11:39 AM   #217 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 12,478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VWBUS1978 View Post
there are only so many hard drug users. if there is only 16 million daily pot-smokers, how many hard drug users are there? probably 2-4 million, maybe? so, right now, there are 20 million people paying these criminals to produce and run drugs.

take away 80% of their revenue and what happens?

by legalizing pot, you're cutting off their largest stream of revenue and putting full control into the hands of the people in this country.

the revenue would continue, but instead of feeding the families of criminals, you're feeding your neighbor's family.

no offense, but in your world of prohibition on pot, the criminals will continue to remain in control of that revenue, as well as have the huge extra incentive to run pot and other drugs together. this is not going to end, unless something is done to curb it. the obvious, easiest and cheapest way to curb it is legalization.
In my opinion, if you take away 80% of the revenues, they adjust and find new ways to make that money plus more. They dont just go away. Enforcement has slashed the hands of the mob and biker gangs for decades. Are they gone? Or have they just adjusted and found new paths of revenue generation? Biker gangs might not ride bikes and wear their patches, but they do wear suits and now are finding ways of revenue generation in the professional world. The mob does the same thing. They may not be strong arming businesses by requesting "lunch bags", but thats not to say they arent in the business of Insurance now.

In my world,
legalizing pot just means more tax dollars being spent than made.
More oppurtunity for cartels to find new drugs to replace pot
More money being spent on abuse and addiction due to availability
More oppurtunity for under age use as legal methods make it easier
Increase user base just through more availability.

The negatives still outweigh the positive. There is no more money. All the money generated from taxation gets eaten up by the social impact that the govt is forced to absorb (check out the link I provided).

So if you take away the tax revenue growth, exactly what fight for the positive is there? That you now have the power to get high without having to worry? WTF? When it was illegal, you already had the means and way to get high off pot. How does that change onces its legal.

Lets say you have a joint on you and a cop catches you. Odds are he rubs it out. This is the case when its illegal. If its legal, you walk away with your joint.

Lets say you have 100 pounds of pot sitting in your trunk. Odds are you get arrested, sent to court and penalized for whatever intent they throw at you. This is the case when its illegal. Its also the case when its legal under the condition of recreational use.

Like I said, I dont know a person that was given prison term over 1 joint. Unless you are arguing for them to legalize the intent for personal use to be more.

Basically what you are saying is that you hate the fact that criminals make all the money off of pot. You want the govt to make the money. But if that means more tax dollars spent than earned, you dont care so as long as you can get your weed legally. It might cost more in the long run for the minority to get pot but overall itll cost everyone including non users more money just because you want wee legally.

I rather criminal control illegal and abusive drugs vs the govt. Atleast we can catch/kill/bring to justice these criminals. Turn it legal and all you have done is made the govt criminals for which you cannot just catch/kill and bring to justice as they make the laws that protect them all in the same boat.

Last edited by Orangejello727; 11-08-2012 at 11:43 AM.
Orangejello727 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 11:48 AM   #218 (permalink)
Member
 
VWBUS1978's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SOUTH JERSEY
Posts: 5,705
Default

so a biker gang going legal and contributing something is detrimental to society?
the mob going legal... same thing?
i don't see cartels getting into the insurance business, and if they did, it would be legal.
moot point, but one you keep bringing up, for some reason.

The Netherlands Compared With The United States | Drug War Facts

Marijuana | Drug War Facts

the above site mainly references government studies and medical journals. it is not a pro-pot site, or an anti-pot site.

here is one article you NEED TO READ!:

Distortion 1: Drug Use Post-Prohibition
Distortion 1: If drugs were legalized there would be an explosion of drug use.

Incorrect. The available research, as affirmed by a recent Federal analysis of drug policy, indicates there would be little if any increase in use.

From 1972 to 1978, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession (covering one-third of the US population) and 33 other states reduced punishment to probation with record erased after six months to one year. Yet, after 1978 marijuana use steadily declined for over a decade. Decriminalization did not increase marijuana use.

[National Research Council, "Informing America’s Policy On Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001), pp. 192-193.]

The Netherlands decriminalized possession and allowed small scale sales of marijuana beginning in 1976. Yet, marijuana use in Holland is half the rate of use in the USA. It is also lower than the United Kingdom which had continued to treat possession as a crime. The UK is now moving toward decriminalization.

[Center for Drug Research, "Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997" (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CEDRO, 1999; Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, "Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report Sept. 1997-Sept. 1999 (The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Nov. 1999); US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 1998, 1999, and 2000 (Washington, DC: SAMHSA).

According to the Center for Drug Research in its report Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997, past-year cannabis use in The Netherlands is estimated at 4.5% for the entire population; past-month use is 2.5%. In the United States, according to NIDA’s National Household Survey on Drug Abuse for 2000, past-year cannabis use is 8.3% of the US population 12 and older, and past-month use is 4.8%.]

If there is an increase in the reported rate of drug use after the end of prohibition, it may be due to an increased willingness to admit to being a drug user. Currently, such an admission means admitting to breaking the law, which social scientists point out discourages honesty.

[National Research Council, "Informing America's Policy On Illegal Drugs" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001): "It is widely thought that nonresponse and inaccurate response may cause surveys such as the NHSDA and MTF to underestimate the prevalence of drug use in the surveyed populations (Caspar, 1992)." (p. 93)]

"Most cross-state comparisons in the United States (as well as in Australia; see McGeorge and Aitken, 1997) have found no significant differences in the prevalence of marijuana use in decriminalized and nondecriminalized states (e.g., Johnston et al., 1981; Single, 1989; DiNardo and Lemieux, 1992; Thies and Register, 1993). Even in the few studies that find an effect on prevalence, it is a weak one. For example, using pooled data from the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse for 1988, 1990 and 1991, Saffer and Chaloupka (1995) found that marijuana decriminalization increased past-year marijuana use by 6 to 7 percent and past-month use by 4 to 5 percent. Using Monitoring The Future survey data for 1982 and 1989, Chaloupka et al. (1998) estimated that decriminalizing marijuana in all states would raise the number of youths using marijuana in a given year by 4 to 5 percent compared with the number using it when marijuana use is criminalized in all states; however, they also found no relationship between decriminalization and past-month use or frequency of use."

Source: National Research Council, "Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001) pp. 192-193

According to the Center for Drug Research in its report Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997, past-year cannabis use in The Netherlands is estimated at 4.5% for the entire population; past-month use is 2.5%. In the United States, according to NIDA’s National Household Survey on Drug Abuse for 2000, past-year cannabis use is 8.3% of the US population 12 and older, and past-month use is 4.8%.

Sources: Center for Drug Research, "Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997" (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CEDRO, 1999; Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, "Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report Sept. 1997-Sept. 1999 (The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Nov. 1999); US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Summary of Findings from the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (Washington, DC: SAMHSA).

"Still, several broad conclusions about misreporting have been drawn. At the most basic level, there appears to be consistent evidence that some respondents misreport their drug use behavior. More specifically, valid self-reporting of drug use appears to depend on the timing of the event and the social desirability of the drug. Recent use may be subject to higher rates of bias. Misreporting rates may be higher for stigmatized drugs, such as cocaine, than for marijuana. False negative reports seem to increase as drug use becomes increasingly stigmatized. The fraction of false negative reports appears to exceed the fraction of false positive reports, although these differences vary by cohorts. Finally, the validity rates can be affected by the data collection methodology. Surveys that can effectively ensure confidentiality and anonymity and that are conducted in noncoerced settings will tend to have relatively low misreporting rates." (NRC, "Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs," pp. 99-100)
__________________
the fact that we exist, in a universe of sheer randomness, is scientific proof that there are aliens.
we are the aliens.
i can say that with 100% accuracy.
VWBUS1978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 11:49 AM   #219 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 12,478
Default

quotes from the article provided




Quote:
Legalization Will Drive The Crime Rate Down

Syndicated columnist Abigail Van Buren endorses Legalization. She wrote in her column, "Dear Abby," that, "The legalization of drugs would put drug dealers out of business."She added that it would also reduce the prison population and create a perpetual source of tax revenue.[27]

Former Surgeon General Elders told a National Press Club luncheon,"Sixty percent of violent crimes are drug- or alcohol-related.... Many times they're robbing, stealing and all of these things to get money to buy drugs.... I do feel that we would markedly reduce our crime rate if drugs were legalized."[28]

Professor Steven Duke told an America Online computer network audience, "Without a doubt, the problem of violent crime would be ameliorated [by legalizing drugs]. I think drug prohibition causes half of our serious crime."[29]

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma.) supports legalization. "We make a mistake, with the serious law enforcement problems we have today, to get the police to arrest people who smoke marijuana.... We are wasting $10 billion a year trying to physically interdict drugs."[30]

The new president of the American Bar Association, George Bushnell, favors legalizing marijuana and cocaine. He believes legalization will cut crime.[31]

Legalizers believe most black market and organized syndicate involvement in the drug business would die and that drug-induced crime would decrease with drug legalization. But these assertions are not supported by the facts. The United States experimented with legalization and it failed. From 1919 to 1922, government-sponsored clinics handed out free drugs to addicts in hopes of controlling their behavior. The effort failed. Society's revulsion against drugs, combined with enforcement, successfully eradicated the menace at that time.[32]

California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.[33] Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use.[34] Patrick Murphy, a court-appointed lawyer for 31,000 abused and neglected children in Chicago, says that more than 80 percent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will reduce these crimes, and there is evidence that suggests it would worsen the problem.[35]

Legalization would decrease drug distribution crime because most of those activities would become lawful. But would legalization necessarily reduce other drug-related crime like robbery, rape, and assault? Presumably legalization would reduce the cost of drugs and thus addicts might commit fewer crimes to pay for their habits. But less expensive drugs might also feed their habit better, and more drugs means more side effects like paranoia, irritability and violence. Suggestions that crime can somehow be eliminated by redefining it are spurious. Free drugs or legalizing bad drugs would not make criminal addicts into productive citizens. Dr. Mitchell S. Rosenthal, expert on drugs and adolescents and president of Phoenix House, a resident treatment center in New York, said, "If you give somebody free drugs you don't turn him into a responsible employee, husband, or father."[36] The Justice Department reports that most inmates (77.4 percent male and 83.6 percent female) have a drug history and the majority were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their current offense. And a surprisingly large number of convicted felons admit their crime motive was to get money for drugs. For example, 12 percent of all violent offenses and 24.4 percent of all property offenses were drug-money motivated.[37]

Even if drugs were legalized some restrictions still would be necessary. For example, restricting the sale of legalized drugs to minors, pregnant women, police, military, pilots and prisoners would be necessary but would still provide a black market niche. Pro-legalizers contend that government could tax drugs, thus off-setting the social costs of abuse. But history proves that efforts to tax imported drugs like opium created a black market. Earlier this century Chinese syndicates smuggled legal opium into this country to avoid tariffs. Even today, there is ample crime based on the legal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. For example, organized crime smuggles cigarettes from states with low tobacco taxes into those with high taxes, and such activities are accompanied by violence against legal suppliers.[38]

If now-illegal drugs were decriminalized, the government would have to determine the allowable potency for commercial drugs. But no government can okay toxic substances, so a black market would be created for higher potency drugs and those that remained banned, like the new "designer drugs."Even pro-drug forces do not call for blanket legalization of drugs like LSD, crack, or PCP. Therefore, we would continue to have drug-related crime and illegal drug distribution organizations that would push these drugs on youngsters, who would be more easily induced into drug abuse through the availability and social sanctioning of marijuana. Drug abuse is closely correlated with crime. The National Youth Survey found that 25 percent of youths who admitted to cocaine or heroin use also committed 40 percent of all the index crimes reported. The survey also found that youths who tested positive for cannabinoids have more than twice as many non-drug-related felony referrals to juvenile court as compared with those found to have tested negative.[39]

The extent to which individuals commit "drug-related crimes only" is overstated. Most incarcerated "drug"offenders violated other laws as well. Princeton University professor John Dilulio found that only 2 percent -- i.e., 700 -- of those in federal prisons were convicted of pure drug possession. They generally committed other and violent crimes to earn a sentence.[40]

However, 70 percent of current inmates were on illegal drugs when arrested and, if drugs become cheaper, violent crime could reasonably be expected to increase.[41]
Orangejello727 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 11:50 AM   #220 (permalink)
Member
 
avjp87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 10,954
Send a message via AIM to avjp87
Default

wow, all of this over the dank sticky icky chronic
__________________
Ray27Ray52:
"53% constitutes a majority? Good to know."
avjp87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 11:57 AM   #221 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 12,478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VWBUS1978 View Post
so a biker gang going legal and contributing something is detrimental to society?
the mob going legal... same thing?
i don't see cartels getting into the insurance business, and if they did, it would be legal.
moot point, but one you keep bringing up, for some reason.
If the US govt decriminalized pot back in the 70s and it was a great revenue generator and there were NO issues, then they do you think they banned it again? If they were making tons of revenue and there was no impact on society, why did they get rid of it?

They decriminalized it in so many states. WHy did they take it back?

Bikers and Mobsters didnt go legal. They found new paths of revenue generation. Just like you. If you lose your job, what do you do? You go and find another job right? If you need to make more money because the previous method of making money wasnt enough what do you do? You find a new method of making more money.

What makes you think this logic doesnt work for mobs/bikers/criminals? You take away one stream and they find another stream. All you are doing is replacing 1 evil with another evil. The only difference here is each time you replace that evil, the next one is that much worse. It take more time and money to study it, then more money to find a way to stop it. Its like a bad cycle.

The cartels are not in the insurance business in your eyes. Where do you think they launder their money? The cartels dont care if you legalize pot or not. They turn to the next thing and push it on you. If you dont accept it, they'll kill you. Isnt that what a "Turf war" is? You impede on their business and they find ways to make money or find ways to get rid of you. In my opinion, youll see this more often than not. More violence as these criminals look for any way to make their $$.

Im sorry I dont believe your notion that theyll just sit there and say "damn now the govt is selling pot, im just going to quit and move on to get a real job now!!" I dont believe thats what will happen to these guys

Last edited by Orangejello727; 11-08-2012 at 11:59 AM.
Orangejello727 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 12:06 PM   #222 (permalink)
Member
 
Gibberish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 6,649
Default

NFL

The NFL’s policy is collectively bargained and will continue to apply in the same manner it has for decades,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said, via USA Today. “Marijuana remains prohibited under the NFL substance abuse program. The Colorado and Washington laws will have no impact on the operation of the policy.”

The policy doesn’t cover former NFL players, obviously, and one of them weighed in on the big news from Colorado via Twitter. LenDale White, who played running back for the Titans, Seahawks and Broncos and served a suspension for violating the substance abuse policy by smoking pot during his playing days, seems pleased by the development.


Since it will be no different than Alcohol in the future, per state laws there, I see this going to court at some point.
__________________
I Collect Marbles,Amazing Spider-man comics and tears! Mr. Sensitivity at your service
Gibberish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 12:18 PM   #223 (permalink)
Member
 
VWBUS1978's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SOUTH JERSEY
Posts: 5,705
Default

If their was another black market that the cartels could exploit, don't you guys think they would already be doing it?

It's not like billion dollar industries pop up overnight.
__________________
the fact that we exist, in a universe of sheer randomness, is scientific proof that there are aliens.
we are the aliens.
i can say that with 100% accuracy.
VWBUS1978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 12:23 PM   #224 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 12,478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VWBUS1978 View Post
If their was another black market that the cartels could exploit, don't you guys think they would already be doing it?

It's not like billion dollar industries pop up overnight.
Sure, I think they are always looking for new revenue generators. But I think they would put a dire emphasis on it if you took away a reliable source. Same reason why apple keeps billions in cash holdings and doesnt spend it all at expanding just because they have cash sitting around. Its all strategy.
Orangejello727 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 12:25 PM   #225 (permalink)
Member
 
Sean1125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangejello727 View Post
All short term issues. None of them associate long term use of pot to solve these problems. Over time pot wont help these pain issues. The body adjust and becomes immune to pot. So again, what long term positive use is there?

Amoxicillan is an antibiotic used to final bacteria in common colds, respitory issues. Its long term use is non existent. Why? Because the body develops immunity to it. Same thing happens to Pot and we adjust to its benefits. Today it helps with pain. Tomorrow it no longer works for the same pain. So what next? We move to Meth? Cocaine? Legalize them because in the short term use, they help people forget their sorrows? Because the booger sugar helps numb my pain. Is that the answer? To keep opening a gateway to ensure viability to legalzing drugs for the excuse that they help you in the short term?

You have stated a few short term benefits. How about stating some short term and long term problems it could cause? Like..

Increased user base
Gateway to other drugs
Social issues with abuse
Concern for youger users to become users with ease of access?
whateve medical side effects that occur with use? (ie short memory loss)

What about all the social problems you create all because you felt that the short term pain relief was worth the effort? Ever think of the long term issues you create for your short term "Fix"??

Its like the old saying, "Shoot first and kill. Answer questions afterwards" Yea...as if that led to solving problems.
Still haven't educated yourself I see.

Feel free to PM and I can explain a bit more to you.
__________________
100% Of HIGH COLUMN BECKETT PAID FOR NEAR MINT SETS! ALWAYS BUYING
E-mail: Sean@Seanbassikcards.com
1 (844) CASH - 001
Baseballcardsingles.com

Last edited by Sean1125; 11-08-2012 at 12:33 PM.
Sean1125 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO
Copyright © 2013, Blowout Cards Inc.