Just Curious [Archive]

wtfm8lol

2nd February 2007, 05:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:02 am
Drugs which cause no physiological addiction (such as marijuana, hashish, and acid) should be legalized, if only for their legitimate medicinal purposes. Drugs such as heroin, meth, coke, and others which cause a powerful physical addiction should be illegal, but use is indeed a victimless crime. Any drug users should be put in rehab, not jail. People who make or distribute these harmful addicting substances should be jailed.
why should they be illegal? if i want to take some coke every once in a while, how is that your business? i stay out of your life, so why can't you stay the fuck out of mine? (not mine really, though, since i dont do drugs anyway)

Drug users are not criminals, they are sick people who need help not jail.

who are you to decide that?

RGacky3

2nd February 2007, 06:10

I agree with wtfm8lol, the government has no right deciding whats harmful or not harmful to my body, or what I can do with it, if I decide to take a shot of heroine every 5 minutes until I die, thats my choice, and my right as a free moral agent.

t_wolves_fan

2nd February 2007, 14:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:41 pm
Are there any OIers in here that actually support the continued illegalization of certain illicit substances (i.e. marijuana, cocaine, etc.) ?
No to marijuana, yes to varying degrees on most other high-powered substances.

Fawkes

2nd February 2007, 14:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:02 pm
Drugs which cause no physiological addiction (such as marijuana, hashish, and acid) should be legalized, if only for their legitimate medicinal purposes. Drugs such as heroin, meth, coke, and others which cause a powerful physical addiction should be illegal, but use is indeed a victimless crime. Any drug users should be put in rehab, not jail. People who make or distribute these harmful addicting substances should be jailed.
The problem is, keeping drugs illegal is one of the main causes of violence in most first-world nations. A good example of how this works is, look at the Prohibition in the U.S. in the 1930s. Organized crime was relatively unheard of prior to that, yet as soon as alcohol was made illegal, organized crime groups sprang up everywhere to sell their alcohol and try to beat the other groups. Think about it, what is better, a man going to a pharmacy to buy heroine that he knows is pure and safe (as safe as it could be), or that same man going into the city, buying drugs from some gang who will most likely use that money to buy weapons, and then go home and shoot up something that he is just hoping is pure with a needle that has been god-knows-where?

Demogorgon

2nd February 2007, 15:08

I'd like to see most drugs legal, but drugs like heroin I am sceptical over I would say it ought to be decriminilised so it is legal to take it but illegal to sell it. The current system seems to in practice target users and petty dealers over the main suppliers which is completely counter productive.

Rasta Sapian

2nd February 2007, 18:44

Power to the People!

Smoke Weed Everyday!

Don't Oppress my Freedom!

Liberate my Mind!

Redemption is Now!

Fight the Power!

Free your Mind!

t_wolves_fan

2nd February 2007, 19:20

Originally posted by Rasta [email protected] 02, 2007 06:44 pm
Slogans
I bet your signs are among the best drawn at the rallies, aren't they.

:lol:

Pow R. Toc H.

5th February 2007, 16:56

I dont really give a fuck about mary jane! Im gonna rock the ganja whether the government lets me or not. When they were voting a little while back on the legalization of bud it didnt matter to me because I'm still going to go through a dealer and Im still gonna toke it. Its the same when it comes to hard drugs as well, who the fuck are you to tell me what I can and cant do to my brain? I mean I dont do hard drugs but to each their own. Why is it the governments fucking business?

analfilth

6th February 2007, 05:46

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 05, 2007 04:56 pm
I dont really give a fuck about mary jane! Im gonna rock the ganja whether the government lets me or not. When they were voting a little while back on the legalization of bud it didnt matter to me because I'm still going to go through a dealer and Im still gonna toke it. Its the same when it comes to hard drugs as well, who the fuck are you to tell me what I can and cant do to my brain? I mean I dont do hard drugs but to each their own. Why is it the governments fucking business?
I really don't think they give two shits if somebody takes it, but it is to do with the theft, violence, etc. that occurs when people are trying to get money to support their drug addiction. They probably believe that the rate of crime will skyrocket if certain drugs are made legal. Also, I'm not too sure on this one, but for those who have to go through drug rehabilitation is that funded by the government? And we all know how they hate to reach into their pocket to help out 'low-life scum' like that. Oh unless ofcourse it's one of our many celebrities.

But anyway I am also sceptical over this topic.. I think i must agree with Demogorgon. In our capital, Canberra (only, every other state it's illegal), it's legal to take marijuana but not deal/sell it.

Marsella

6th February 2007, 13:13

why should they be illegal? if i want to take some coke every once in a while, how is that your business? i stay out of your life, so why can't you stay the fuck out of mine? (not mine really, though, since i dont do drugs anyway)

It is our (society's) business when your (not specifically you) drug-taking impacts others, be it your family or society. Inevitably it impacts society because you are providing demand for drug-dealers. Also, a decent proportion of theft is to support drug habits. How can you be a free-moral agent when drugs are controlling you?

Eleutherios

6th February 2007, 13:39

Well, then, shouldn't alcohol and tobacco be illegal too? I mean, alcohol use and tobacco use impacts others, be it family or society. Inevitably it impacts society because you are providing demand for alcohol and tobacco companies. Also, a decent proportion of theft is to support alcohol and tobacco habits. How can you be a free-moral agent when alcohol and tobacco are controlling you?

Yeah, everything affects everything in this universe. But that still doesn't mean that you should be able to tell me what I can do with my body. If I want to smoke a joint with my friends or eat some shrooms in the privacy of my bedroom, and I'm not stealing anything or shooting anybody to get my stuff, why the hell do you care?

seraphim

6th February 2007, 13:45

In the current political climate no clearly not it wouls just be yet another enterprise to be exploited by capitalists. However in a socialist/communist society yes! The problem with drugs in the western world starts with education and goes all the way through to the black market created by criminalisation. Most drug problems aren't created by the drugs themselves they're created by the shit that's added to them, and the lengths people have to go to in order to get them. Heroine is the cleanest drug you can buy (except weed of course) and the shit that's thrown in there you wouldn't believe. Legalisation is the only plausible outcome for society. When the legal drugs do more damage and kill more people than the illegal ones you know something has to change. You'll never stop drug taking and drug culture legalistion is the only eventual option.

Marsella

6th February 2007, 13:47

I mean, alcohol use and tobacco use impacts others, be it family or society.

But there are limits on alcohol & smoking use. Age for example. Plus, if it does become a problem then there are support groups.

How can you be a free-moral agent when alcohol and tobacco are controlling you?

I was ridiculing the idea of a 'free-moral agent.'

Futhermore, there are different consequences between taking drugs and drinking alcohol (although both can kill you).

What it comes down to is that government cannot profit from a black-market drug trade. Religion too impinges on drug taking. Thats not to mention the physical effects.

Overall, would you agree that it would be better that nobody took drugs and it was illegal, versus drug-taking being legal and the consequences of that?

Sure it impinges on your 'freedom' but wouldn't it be the greatest good?

Eleutherios

6th February 2007, 14:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:47 pm
But there are limits on alcohol & smoking use. Age for example. Plus, if it does become a problem then there are support groups.
And that should be different for other drugs because....

I was ridiculing the idea of a 'free-moral agent.'

Futhermore, there are different consequences between taking drugs and drinking alcohol (although both can kill you).
Alcohol is a drug. And of the drugs I take, it's the most dangerous. Marijuana and psilocybin mushrooms do not kill people.

What it comes down to is that government cannot profit from a black-market drug trade.
Well, duh. What does that have to do with anything?

Religion too impinges on drug taking.
I'm an atheist; I don't care about religion.

Thats not to mention the physical effects.
If somebody is well-informed about the physical effects of something, and they still choose to take it, who are you to reverse their choice and tell them they can't do it? I mean, all drugs have their risks, but if we're going to ban any drug with "physical effects" then we might as well shut down all the pharmacies.

People are going to take drugs, whether you want them to or not. I'm going to take drugs, whether you want me to or not. The choice is between us getting them off the criminal-laden black market or through institutions that are subject to the scrutiny of the general public.

Overall, would you agree that it would be better that nobody took drugs and it was illegal, versus drug-taking being legal and the consequences of that?
No, not at all.

"You see, I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years … rrreal fucking high on drugs." —Bill Hicks

Sure it impinges on your 'freedom' but wouldn't it be the greatest good?
No. No, it most definitely would not. I know you probably wouldn't understand it, since you have probably never taken an illegal drug in your life, but they can (gasp) actually increase people's happiness! Yeah, when I'm smoking pot with my parents or with my friends, we have a great time, and I feel it has brought us closer together than we would be without it. It would definitely not be for the greatest good if next time the police showed up and threw me, my family and my friends in jail for smoking a little pot.

Marsella

6th February 2007, 14:18

And that should be different for other drugs because....

Alcohol is a drug. And of the drugs I take, it's the most dangerous. Marijuana and psilocybin mushrooms do not kill people.

Sure, I agree that alcohol kills more people than any other drug. But that doesn't excuse other drugs, or make it the lesser of two evils.

Well, duh. What does that have to do with anything?
Wouldn't the government want to profit off a drug trade? It has relevance because this argument is about the government restricting drug trade.

If somebody is well-informed about the physical effects of something, and they still choose to take it, who are you to reverse their choice and tell them they can't do it? I mean, all drugs have their risks, but if we're going to ban any drug with "physical effects" then we might as well shut down all the pharmacies.

People are going to take drugs, whether you want them to or not. I'm going to take drugs, whether you want me to or not. The choice is between us getting them off the criminal-laden black market or through institutions that are subject to the scrutiny of the general public.
Thats a poor equation in the first paragraph. Legal drugs are mainly beneficial to health. Illegal drugs are not typically healthy.

My opinion of course won't change anothers. But the law and its consequences has a moral and persuasive authority that certainly influences drug-taking.

No. No, it most definitely would not. I know you probably wouldn't understand it, since you have probably never taken an illegal drug in your life, but they can (gasp) actually increase people's happiness! Yeah, when I'm smoking pot with my parents or with my friends, we have a great time, and I feel it has brought us closer together than we would be without it. It would definitely not be for the greatest good if next time the police showed up and threw me, my family and my friends in jail for smoking a little pot.

Yes I actually have, whilst listening to Dark Side of the Moon. Does it make people happy? Well you can ask broken families...For you it certainly makes you happy. But if we based our decisions on what made us happy I would quit uni, my job and become a better guitar player that Jimmy Page. Its not gonna happen...BTW i studied criminal law. A little pot would get you a little fine, not a litte jail time. And I'm playing the devil's advocate on why governments make drugs illegal. personally, i think that drug-selling should be subject to public scrutiny rather than enlarge the pockets of some drug dealing cappie.

Marsella

6th February 2007, 14:29

Bill Hicks, wikipedia. (Maybe you should look at how drugs effected Hick's life before extolling the virtues of drug-taking)

In 1983, Bill Hicks began drinking heavily while using a massive regimen of illicit substances, including LSD, psilocybin, cocaine, MDMA, poppy tea, Valium, Quaaludes, and meth, which may have influenced his increasingly disjointed and angry, at times even misanthropic ranting style on stage. As had become his trademark, he continued attacking the American dream, hypocritical beliefs, and traditional attitudes. During his first experience with alcohol[citation needed], Hicks viciously attacked the audience in a drunken rage, after which, two Vietnam veterans took exception to his statements and sought him out after the show, breaking one of his legs and cracking one of his ribs.

Hicks's success steadily increased (along with his drug use), and in 1984 he got an appearance on the talkshow Late Night with David Letterman, which was engineered by his friend Jay Leno. He made an impression on David Letterman and ended up doing eleven more appearances, presenting bowdlerized versions of his stage shows.

In 1986, Hicks found himself broke after spending all his money on various drugs, but his career got another upturn as he appeared on Rodney Dangerfield's Young Comedians Special in 1987. The same year, he moved to New York City, and for the next five years he did about 300 performances a year. His reputation suffered from his drug use, however, and in 1988, he claimed to have quit everything — including alcohol. Hicks recounts his quitting of alcohol in the One Night Stand special and on Flying Saucer Tour Vol. 1. On the album Relentless, he jokes that he quit using drugs because "once you've been taken aboard a UFO, it's kind of hard to top that," although in his performances, he continued to extol the virtues of LSD, marijuana, and psychedelic mushrooms.[2] He fell back to cigarette smoking, a theme that would figure heavily in his performances from then on.

An infamous gig in Chicago during 1989, later released as the bootleg I'm Sorry, Folks, resulted in Hicks screaming possibly his most infamous quote, "Hitler had the right idea, he was just an underachiever" to a heckler shouting "Free Bird" over and over. Hicks followed this remark with a misanthropic tirade calling for unbiased genocide against the whole of humanity, suggesting that it was not an anti-Semitic comment but rather an expression of his disgust with humanity in general. Hicks often veered between hope and love for the human race and utter hopelessness. In the same gig, he yelled at a female heckler, calling her a "drunk ****" and demanding that she be removed: "Take her out! Take her fucking out! Take her to somewhere that's GOOD! Go see fucking Madonna, you fucking idiot piece of shit!"

Whilst drug taking has helped your family bond it hasn't been the case for my family.

Eleutherios

6th February 2007, 17:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:18 pm
Sure, I agree that alcohol kills more people than any other drug. But that doesn't excuse other drugs, or make it the lesser of two evils.
I'm just saying it's hypocritical to be supportive of alcohol being legal but to want other drugs which are less harmful to be illegal. If marijuana and psilocybin mushrooms are too dangerous to be legal for the general public, then so is alcohol. So which is it? Should we be able to take recreational drugs, or should we ban alcohol?

Wouldn't the government want to profit off a drug trade? It has relevance because this argument is about the government restricting drug trade.
Well, yeah, the government would want to profit off drugs, and they already do profit off the two most commonly used recreational drugs (tobacco and alcohol), but I am an anarchist and I think ideally there should be no government to tell us what we can and can't ingest, and no government to profit off anything.

Thats a poor equation in the first paragraph. Legal drugs are mainly beneficial to health. Illegal drugs are not typically healthy.
So what if something is healthy or not? We don't automatically ban anything that isn't healthy. If that were the case, we'd have to outlaw not only tobacco and alcohol and caffeine, but also fatty foods, smog-producing cars, pesticides, unprotected sex, acts of self-mutilation, and a host of other things. I'm not saying these are good things, just that they are things which don't deserve punishment.

And by the way, marijuana has been proven to have positive health effects for people with certain conditions.

My opinion of course won't change anothers. But the law and its consequences has a moral and persuasive authority that certainly influences drug-taking.
Well, I'm an anarchist. Fuck the law, and fuck authority.

Yes I actually have, whilst listening to Dark Side of the Moon. Does it make people happy? Well you can ask broken families...
I have yet to hear of a family that's been broken because of marijuana, that wasn't due to the simple fact that it is illegal.

For you it certainly makes you happy. But if we based our decisions on what made us happy I would quit uni, my job and become a better guitar player that Jimmy Page.
Well, if we don't base our decisions on what makes us happy, then what in the hell do we base our decisions on? Presumably you didn't quit uni, didn't quit your job and didn't become a guitar player because you realized that ultimately this would not be conducive to your happiness.

What makes me happy may not make you happy, and what makes you happy may not make me happy, but surely we should all have the right to pursue happiness however we want as long as we don't harm anyone else in the process, right?

Its not gonna happen...BTW i studied criminal law. A little pot would get you a little fine, not a litte jail time.
It depends on where you live, really.

And I'm playing the devil's advocate on why governments make drugs illegal. personally, i think that drug-selling should be subject to public scrutiny rather than enlarge the pockets of some drug dealing cappie.
So you agree that all drugs should be legalized then?

Eleutherios

6th February 2007, 17:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:29 pm
Bill Hicks, wikipedia. (Maybe you should look at how drugs effected Hick's life before extolling the virtues of drug-taking)
Yeah, I know about Bill Hicks' life. There are things I agree with him on, and things I don't agree with him on. Just because I posted one quote by him does not mean I agree with everything he's ever said or done.

And by the way, even though he quit drugs, he still said quite frequently in his act that he didn't regret using drugs at all and that he still felt it enhanced his life.

Whilst drug taking has helped your family bond it hasn't been the case for my family.
Well, that's your family. If your family isn't being helped by the drugs it is taking, then that's your problem and you have to deal with it yourselves instead of blaming inanimate substances. But if my family wants to smoke a few bowls of weed together and we all like it and have no problem with it, then why should anybody care about that?

Just because alcohol has led some people to addiction and violence doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to enjoy a beer with my friend at the local bar. If somebody isn't using a drug responsibly, then that's a personal problem that they have to deal with.

Marsella

6th February 2007, 19:09

Well, yeah, the government would want to profit off drugs, and they already do profit off the two most commonly used recreational drugs (tobacco and alcohol), but I am an anarchist and I think ideally there should be no government to tell us what we can and can't ingest, and no government to profit off anything.

Then how can you support drug-dealers who are no better than capitalists?

And by the way, marijuana has been proven to have positive health effects for people with certain conditions.

I agree. Average teenagers probably don't fall in that category.

Well, I'm an anarchist. Fuck the law, and fuck authority.
How convincing. I wasn't stating that we should recklessly follow the law but explaining how laws influence your choices; your not so autonomous. Would you still smoke weed if it invoked the death penalty?

I have yet to hear of a family that's been broken because of marijuana, that wasn't due to the simple fact that it is illegal.
Families break up long before the drug-takers are sent to jail. And by the way, they will probably be seen to jail for stealing rather than drug-possession.

But if my family wants to smoke a few bowls of weed together and we all like it and have no problem with it, then why should anybody care about that?

They shouldn't really. But not all families are harmonious as yours.

What makes me happy may not make you happy, and what makes you happy may not make me happy, but surely we should all have the right to pursue happiness however we want as long as we don't harm anyone else in the process, right?
You certainly don't have the 'right' to pursue what you want. But yes the perogative is yours.

And by the way, even though he quit drugs, he still said quite frequently in his act that he didn't regret using drugs at all and that he still felt it enhanced his life.
Yeah I understand that. But I though it was pretty stupid to use musical creativity as the sole justification for legalising drug use. My grandma played the piano and she didn't smoke crack.

Just because alcohol has led some people to addiction and violence doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to enjoy a beer with my friend at the local bar. If somebody isn't using a drug responsibly, then that's a personal problem that they have to deal with.
Yeah I agree. But people aren't just sitting in a vacuum. Their personal problems end up effecting others. Addicted druggies end up leeching off families or off the state. So much for self-emancipation of the workers. You can't use the argument that weed is illegal to create revenue for the state. The cost of rehab, court costs, judge wages, legal aid, police work makes a great expense for the state. It would be financially better if drugs were legalised.

The debate wasn't just over weed, but over drug legality generally. Would it be OK to support a company which researched weaponary for the USA? Would it be OK to buy blood diamonds? The consumer must take some responsibility in the product he/she is purchasing. Same goes for drugs.

Overall, it would be better if drugs were administered over some authority versus individuals (drug-sellers).

C_Rasmussen

6th February 2007, 19:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:49 pm
drugs are drugs would they be as much fun if they where legal?
Yeah thats true. Keep in mind though that legalization'll keep people out of jail/prison. Thats another thing I don't get, why pot is so illegal? seeing as its safer than alcohol (and thats coming from a heavy drinker).

Fawkes

14th February 2007, 14:55

I really don't think they give two shits if somebody takes it, but it is to do with the theft, violence, etc. that occurs when people are trying to get money to support their drug addiction. They probably believe that the rate of crime will skyrocket if certain drugs are made legal.
If anything, crime rates would go down with the legalization of drugs. Read the post I made on the first page about how drug legalization would drastically reduce gang violence.

Fawkes

15th February 2007, 23:07

Also, I'm not too sure on this one, but for those who have to go through drug rehabilitation is that funded by the government?
Not always. It cost $14,000 to send my step-mom to an alcohol rehabilitation center for about 2 months. Fortunately, her wealthy mother offered to pay for it.

foreverfaded

17th February 2007, 20:04

Free your mind!

No, expand your mind
some of the best conversations i have had with people
have been with people under the influence of Acid or marijuana. Hell, Adderall even (yes its a pussy drug and poor mans cocaine) but take 120mg of that and you will think more than you have ever htought.

The government disapproves of the use of drugs because it expands our minds and we think more. "Change is not far when people start to think differently".

colonelguppy

17th February 2007, 21:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:04 pm

Free your mind!

No, expand your mind
some of the best conversations i have had with people
have been with people under the influence of Acid or marijuana. Hell, Adderall even (yes its a pussy drug and poor mans cocaine) but take 120mg of that and you will think more than you have ever htought.

The government disapproves of the use of drugs because it expands our minds and we think more. "Change is not far when people start to think differently".
i don't think the government is that diabolical... i think its more of the fact that its a political issue with most voters, atleast its that way in america. ending the war on drugs would just look bad politically.

plus, there is pressure from the internal bueracracy to not end it, putting people in jail employs alot of people.

foreverfaded

17th February 2007, 23:14

It also puts money into the economy
i agree that government is that diabolical
but im sure its been brought up by someone
it all goes back to money
thats all its ever about
legalizing marijuana would take money out of the economy.

is it true that marijuana can not be taxed?
i have heard that...but i didnt know if it was a known fact

colonelguppy

17th February 2007, 23:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:14 pm
It also puts money into the economy
i agree that government is that diabolical
but im sure its been brought up by someone
it all goes back to money
thats all its ever about
legalizing marijuana would take money out of the economy.

is it true that marijuana can not be taxed?
i have heard that...but i didnt know if it was a known fact
no, legalizing marijuana would put money back into the economy, as A) there is increased incentive to grow and sell when the business is legitimized, and B) because taxes won't have to be as high when we don't have to spend $40 billion a year on the drug war.

i don't see why it couldn't be taxed if it were made legal.

Fawkes

17th February 2007, 23:32

no, legalizing marijuana would put money back into the economy, as A) there is increased incentive to grow and sell when the business is legitimized,
Legalizing marijuana would help the economy very little because there would be no market for something that people could so easily grow themselves.

B) because taxes won't have to be as high when we don't have to spend $40 billion a year on the drug war.
Funding for the War on Drugs is actually going down, meaning that as much of your tax money isn't going into it as it used to. If marijuana was legalized, the government wouldn't have all those laborers working for free that it does now.

i don't see why it couldn't be taxed if it were made legal.
Taxing it would just be even more of an incentive for people to either grow it themselves of buy it off of friends.

foreverfaded

17th February 2007, 23:39

sorry about not backing up my statements with fact
i thought what fawkes said was already known

what about imports...no doubt the best marijuana would come from third world countries...so there would be some imported. I thought that imported marijuana can not be taxed (from what ive been told). i do not know much about taxes on imports/exports.

but then buying marijuana from 3rd world countries, most likely run by a dictator, would give money to the dictator

or i could be wrong
but thats sort of contradictory

Fawkes

17th February 2007, 23:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:39 pm
sorry about not backing up my statements with fact
i thought what fawkes said was already known

what about imports...no doubt the best marijuana would come from third world countries...so there would be some imported. I thought that imported marijuana can not be taxed (from what ive been told). i do not know much about taxes on imports/exports.

but then buying marijuana from 3rd world countries, most likely run by a dictator, would give money to the dictator

or i could be wrong
but thats sort of contradictory
With indoor growing techniques the way they are today, there would be no need to import marijuana from anywhere.

colonelguppy

18th February 2007, 00:04

Legalizing marijuana would help the economy very little because there would be no market for something that people could so easily grow themselves.

maybe, but we don't really know what would happen if legalized. i personally wouldn't bother growing it myself if i could go to 711 and pick up a gram.

either way, you certainly wouldn't be losing anything by legalizing it, which was my main point.

Funding for the War on Drugs is actually going down, meaning that as much of your tax money isn't going into it as it used to. If marijuana was legalized, the government wouldn't have all those laborers working for free that it does now.

but still, that's money being drained from the economy. the cost of incarceration is definately higher than whatever slave labor you get out of the inmates.

Taxing it would just be even more of an incentive for people to either grow it themselves of buy it off of friends.

yeah probably.

Qwerty Dvorak

18th February 2007, 00:23

Legalizing marijuana would help the economy very little because there would be no market for something that people could so easily grow themselves.

The same could be said for any crop, really.

foreverfaded

18th February 2007, 01:35

Originally posted by Fawkes+February 17, 2007 11:41 pm--> (Fawkes @ February 17, 2007 11:41 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 06:39 pm
sorry about not backing up my statements with fact
i thought what fawkes said was already known

what about imports...no doubt the best marijuana would come from third world countries...so there would be some imported. I thought that imported marijuana can not be taxed (from what ive been told). i do not know much about taxes on imports/exports.

but then buying marijuana from 3rd world countries, most likely run by a dictator, would give money to the dictator

or i could be wrong
but thats sort of contradictory
With indoor growing techniques the way they are today, there would be no need to import marijuana from anywhere. [/b]
yea, but america (if they could tax it) would definately import it
i mean...marlboro already has a pack made for if/when it becomes legalized

Fawkes

18th February 2007, 04:40

but still, that's money being drained from the economy. the cost of incarceration is definately higher than whatever slave labor you get out of the inmates.
But the value of seeming tough on crime is immense for a politician.

The same could be said for any crop, really.
The amount of marijuana needed to get one high takes far less energy and land to grow produce than, say, the amount of corn to feed on person one night.

yea, but america (if they could tax it) would definately import it
i mean...marlboro already has a pack made for if/when it becomes legalized
They wouldn't import it if they didn't have a market. Like I said, with indoor growing techniques the way they are today, nobody would buy imported weed that costs twice as much as weed that's just as good that was grown down the street.

foreverfaded

18th February 2007, 06:04

thats what im saying though
the best weed i ever smoked
was weed i got for a birthday
and it was foreign made weed (from what i was told)
didnt know about how it got there
you the hole dont ask questions thing
but yea

it can not be legitimately proven to raise profits noticeably
thtas why its not legalized
becasue the corporations can not profit from it
Like fawkes said, its so easy to grow on its own
they would have to make it illegal to grow it
(which people would do even more because it was illegal...losing more profit and eventually making it illegal again because they make a lot less legal than illegal)

yea...basically i agree with fawkes