What are the pros/cons of legalizing weed and taxing it like cigarettes and alcohol?

[Displaced Bama Fan]

Advocates state that marijuana is not a gateway drug. So, if that is in fact the case, what are the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana and treating it similarly to tobacco and alcohol?

My thoughts:

Pros:

1) Less crime/prisons needed to house those "hardened" weed smoker (less expense to the taxpayers)
2) Tax it (more tax revenue for state/federal government)
3) Residual sales such as chips, twinkies, etc. go up (more tax revenue for the local/state govt)
4) More relaxed society

Cons:

1) less motivated society, may not be willing to work (wards of the state/higher expense to state/fed)
2) DUIs/accidents

 

[Bamaro]

Pros - wont have to drive to Denver

 

[Bamafaninco1]

Denver police reported this morning that they are already issuing DUI's of at least one per week in relation to weed. There were three accidents directly related to people driving under the influence last week, two hit police cars.

 

[mittman]

Advocates state that marijuana is not a gateway drug. So, if that is in fact the case, what are the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana and treating it similarly to tobacco and alcohol?

Well first off as someone with experience in this, It is often a gateway drug (there are always exceptions). I have seen it way too often to be convinced otherwise. In my mind that puts your premise in jeopardy.

Pros:

1) Less crime/prisons needed to house those "hardened" weed smoker (less expense to the taxpayers)

IMO this is already happening with sentencing guidelines and lax enforcement.

2) Tax it (more tax revenue for state/federal government)

Due to some of your cons and other reasons, I do not believe this is a zero sum gain.

3) Residual sales such as chips, twinkies, etc. go up (more tax revenue for the local/state govt)

LOL. Just don't use someone else's student Id for the purchase.

4) More relaxed society

I guarantee I will be less relaxed

Cons:

1) less motivated society, may not be willing to work (wards of the state/higher expense to state/fed)

I am not sure this is provable or knowable. However, I do believe there are tangible and verifiable problems with the workforce when this is induced, just as there are with alcohol.

2) DUIs/accidents

Add the additional social needs for those with addictions.
Add the cost of monitoring and regulation just as we have with alcohol.
Add the lessons learned from Colorado. I am not sure what these will be, but I am curious to see how they deal with black markets, theft at the "legitimate" stores, control of supply, etc.


society is obviously moving toward this opinion and away from mine, but this is a BAD idea.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Denver police reported this morning that they are already issuing DUI's of at least one per week in relation to weed. There were three accidents directly related to people driving under the influence last week, two hit police cars.

I'm shocked

 

[TheAccountant]

A first step would be for the government to not classify cannabis as a schedule I narcotic with the likes of heroin and LSD.

 

[TheAccountant]

Denver police reported this morning that they are already issuing DUI's of at least one per week in relation to weed. There were three accidents directly related to people driving under the influence last week, two hit police cars.

Do you think those who were arrested just started smoking marijuana AFTER it was decriminalized?

 

[MOAN]

The war on marijuana is lost, time to accept that and move on to bigger frish to fy! If the pro's and con's cancel each other out then we are no worse off than we are today, just putting our efforts towards other more society challenging priorities.

It needs to be medically legal and decriminalized at least. Drug test employees in dangerous jobs, athletes, politicians, preachers, doctors, nurses, policemen, or any professional workers all you want, I would! Driving under the influence charges should not be affected as that is in place now even if it is driving under prescription impairing drugs.

I would like for someone here to list the pro's and con's to smoking tobacco.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

If they ever do legalize it, I am buying stocks in Doritos, Funyuns, and Bugles.

 

[MOAN]

If they ever do legalize it, I am buying stocks in Doritos, Funyuns, and Bugles.

I know a lot of pot smokers and the majority of them are skinny, work in all kinds of white collar jobs, well respected and have no criminal records at all. I also know a lot of obese people who do not smoke pot and eat Doritos, Little Debbie's and buggies of state paid for cola's.

The munchies in the movies after smoking pot are funny and stuff but very much exaggerated from reality. You rarely see a pot smoker with a beer belly like myself!

 

[Bamaro]

This is the future of pot:
http://www.hightimes.com/read/top-10-edibles-us-cup-denver

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/08/top_10_medicated_edibles_medical_marijuana.php

http://www.vice.com/read/colorados-legal-weed-edibles-are-high-on-sophistication

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

The war on marijuana is lost, time to accept that and move on to bigger frish to fy! If the pro's and con's cancel each other out then we are no worse off than we are today, just putting our efforts towards other more society challenging priorities.

It needs to be medically legal and decriminalized at least. Drug test employees in dangerous jobs, athletes, politicians, preachers, doctors, nurses, policemen, or any professional workers all you want, I would! Driving under the influence charges should not be affected as that is in place now even if it is driving under prescription impairing drugs.

I would like for someone here to list the pro's and con's to smoking tobacco.

Athletes? How many athletes currently smoke weed or synthetic weed? What would be the point in drug testing any of them? For insurance purposes, you can test someone for tobacco and they can still find traces of nicotine in their system a month out. Does that mean they just smoked? There needs to be a threshold established, much like alcohol to be considered "impaired." The only time you should test is if you think that person is impaired.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

Legalize weed across the country and have screenings of some classic stoner movies:

Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Scary Movies
Dazed and Confused
Friday
Next Friday
Half Baked
Harold and Kumar go to White Castle
Up in Smoke
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
Dude, Where's My Car?
How High?

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

It's not going away...its a fact of life, so legalize it and move on. I don't know too many people that are violent socio-paths as a result of smoking weed. I wonder what statistics support crime (not possession/trafficking), but crime committed as a result weed such as burglaries, theft, etc? Heroin addicts will do whatever they need to do to get that next fix. Sell their bodies, rob, B&E, kill....

How true is this of marijuana users?

 

[hollisx4]

For insurance purposes, you can test someone for tobacco and they can still find traces of nicotine in their system a month out. Does that mean they just smoked?

I would go even further with your point because the way I've read it, accident's are sometimes classified as "alcohol may have been a contributing factor" when in fact the person that may have been involved with or caused the accident was not over the legal limit. Face it, some people are just bad drivers and sometimes accidents happen to good drivers as well.

I'm sure they skew the statistics the same way with the pot statistics.

It gets suburbanites all riled up with demands for the gub'mint to do something when they hear statistics on the news that seem to show drinking and driving are getting worse when we may be getting manipulated by those in our jackpot justice system to allow them to create more stringent laws "for our safety".

It's all about the money folks.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

I would go even further with your point because the way I've read it, accident's are sometimes classified as "alcohol may have been a contributing factor" when in fact the person that may have been involved with or caused the accident was not over the legal limit. Face it, some people are just bad drivers and sometimes accidents happen to good drivers as well.

I'm sure they skew the statistics the same way with the pot statistics.

It gets suburbanites all riled up with demands for the gub'mint to do something when they hear statistics on the news that seem to show drinking and driving are getting worse when we may be getting manipulated by those in our jackpot justice system to allow them to create more stringent laws "for our safety".

It's all about the money folks.

That's all driven by insurance companies who 1) don't want to pay out as much and 2) want higher profits. Yes, it's driven by money. Of course, if wearing a seatbelt and installing airbags in cars does reduce loss of life or prevent significant injury then it's a win as well. Personally, I wish texting and driving would be outlawed. I know of a couple of kids that have died as a result of texting while driving. So from a "suburbanite" there are some things that may be common sense, but most people, from what I've seen, lack that common sense. So maybe I'm one of those "ruling" class folks after all.

 

[hollisx4]

So from a "suburbanite" there are some things that may be common sense, but most people, from what I've seen, lack that common sense. So maybe I'm one of those "ruling" class folks after all.

But who are you me or anyone else for that matter, to believe we have the authority to tell other free Americans how they should live their lives, because certain political classes think the government should be in charge of all of our lives?

I agree that seat belts maybe safer for most folks, but is it the government's responsibility to enforce compliance, ie...be my daddy?

And shouldn't my own self interests dictate to me what I do in my car, as long as I'm not harming others?

And speaking of airbags in cars, if most people wanted them in their new cars, wouldn't the free market take care of that problem? Of course it would, people would buy cars that had airbags and the next thing you know, all cars would have them.
Think about power steering, is it easier to drive a car with or without power steering? Of course it's easier with power steering.
Did the government have to force auto manufacturers to start putting in power steering or did the free market handle that one too?

Remember the Ben Franklin quote, "Those who would give up Liberty for Security deserve neither".

 

[Jon]

Colorado made $1.25M unofficially in Taxes in 1 week of legal sales (haven't seen the official numbers but sales were reported at ~$5M and the tax is 25%) and saved who knows how much in no longer having to use police and court resources to fight weed

I see that as a major "Pro"

as fo Con's I don't see them

I find cigarettes and alcohol to be far worse from a health perspective. And I believe are just as bad as "gateway" drugs.

 

[CHATTBRIT]

You have to think that many of the state and federal lawmakers are the same people who did a lot of pot in the 1960's/1970's (or may be still using to this day). With this in mind, there is a greater likelihood of legalizing pot nationwide or, at the very least, not categorized as a Schedule I narcotic.

Decriminalizing pot will (1) reduce prison population; (2) provide added tax base; (3) and save money by not investigating, interdicting, or prosecuting MJ cases.

PS: Personally tried pot once and didn't get anything from it so I have nothing to gain personally from legalizing it.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

But who are you me or anyone else for that matter, to believe we have the authority to tell other free Americans how they should live their lives, because certain political classes think the government should be in charge of all of our lives?

I agree that seat belts maybe safer for most folks, but is it the government's responsibility to enforce compliance, ie...be my daddy?

And shouldn't my own self interests dictate to me what I do in my car, as long as I'm not harming others?

And speaking of airbags in cars, if most people wanted them in their new cars, wouldn't the free market take care of that problem? Of course it would, people would buy cars that had airbags and the next thing you know, all cars would have them.
Think about power steering, is it easier to drive a car with or without power steering? Of course it's easier with power steering.
Did the government have to force auto manufacturers to start putting in power steering or did the free market handle that one too?

Remember the Ben Franklin quote, "Those who would give up Liberty for Security deserve neither".

I'll bite. It's a double-edged sword. Insurance pay less claims, i.e. save money or make more money and consumers don't die as often because there is a veiled threat of getting ticketed. I agree with you in that it's your life and you should live it as you see fit. However, if you die in a car crash and my rates go up because you weren't wearing a seat belt, now your personal freedom or stupidity, however you want to look at, affects my ability to live less financially constrained because my rates went up due to something that was purely preventable on your part.

Now, since we are talking about "Liberty" does this count as one of those rights delegated to the States to govern as they so choose? (note: I'm not calling you stupid, directly, just anyone who avoids wearing seat belts - I didn't wear one for the first few years I drove 83-86).