Talk about decriminalizing marijuana has been ongoing since the 1950s. A NY Times article by Sylvia Longmire looks at drug cartels in respect to legalizing marijuana: For one thing, if marijuana makes up 60 percent of the cartels’ profits, that still leaves another 40 percent, which includes the sale of methamphetamine, cocaine, and brown-powder and black-tar heroin. If marijuana were legalized, the cartels would still make huge profits from the sale of these other drugs. Plus, there’s no reason the cartels couldn’t enter the legal market for the sale of marijuana, as organized crime groups did in the United States after the repeal of Prohibition. I think everybody knows the argument about the alcohol lobby and the church working together to keep marijuana illegal; so I am not going to explore that topic. To me, the usual debates surrounding legalization ignores one very important question: When will dirty little moralists learn they can’t legislate good behavior anymore than they can legislate love? Although there is no constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture, transportation, and sale of addictive drugs, the XVIII Amendment serves as a beacon shining on what not to do. Prohibition was an attempt to legislate the behavior of law-abiding citizens as opposed to prohibiting murder, theft, and so on. The XVIII Amendment was such a disaster it stands as the only Amendment ever to be repealed, and it was repealed a mere 14 years after it was ratified. Those fourteen years gave the country organized crime. Drug cartels have been operating for so long they now use military tactics to defend their incomes. Just think what organized crime bosses would have done if they had 40 or 50 years instead of 14. The Volstead Act was enforced, although not very effectively, resulting in the success of gangsters like Al Capone; especially in big cities. After XXI Amendment was ratified one joke went something like this: Repeal is a con job. There is no more booze available now than there was during Prohibition. The lyrics in that very subtle song, Cocktails for Two, represent a nice little peek into what the public (minus teetotalers) was really thinking after Prohibition was repealed. The hit song was written in1934. I still crackup every time I hear Spike Jones’ rendition: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYrv-kBUh3Y&feature=player_detailpage"]YouTube - ‪Spike Jones Cocktails for Two‬‏[/ame] The savoir-faire in these two lines said it all: To be given the right To be carefree and gay once again The government gave Americans the Right to be carefree and gay once again! Isn’t “once again” saying that Americans were carefree and gay before Prohibition? The public back then understood that a few puritans didn’t want anybody to enjoy life whether or not individuals took a drink every now and then. (Falling down drunks are another matter.) And where has lighthearted gaiety gone since the Socialists/Communists took over the federal government? The only thing the government gives us today is the Right to pay taxes so that every parasite with a cause can enjoy a tax dollar income. Even after Prohibition was repealed the government never completely eliminated the production of moonshine. Nevertheless, Prohibition was the worst legislative disaster to ever cripple this country. After it is fully implemented the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will outdo Prohibition’s devastation albeit in different ways. Medical marijuana In the last few decades there’s been a lot of talk about decriminalizing pot for medical use only. That argument did not exist in the early years of the debate. The parasite class advocates decriminalizing marijuana across the board so it can be taxed to pay for healthcare and whatever else politicians want. That position is nothing more than “Tax everything to pay for everything.” Unfortunately for rank & file grasshoppers, steam will always be illegal. Here is why taxing Mary Jane is not feasible as well as being self-defeating: Individuals are legally entitled to make a certain amount of beer, wine, and whiskey for their own consumption. Not many American drinkers make their own hooch; so taxation is not a problem for the tax collector. Not so with Mary Jane. Assuming that Mary Jane will get the same personal-use exemption John Barleycorn enjoys, tens of millions of grasshoppers will grow their own (no one knows how many are already into gardening). Taxes collected on retail marijuana sales will be minuscule. Parenthetically, drug cartels going legit as did Prohibition era bootleggers will not have it so easy because of the aforementioned personal-use exemption. Thirty or forty million grasshoppers, spread across fifty states, growing their own is more than enough to panic the tax collector. Even twenty million gardening-grasshoppers can put a serious dent in tobacco and alcohol sales; more so if they supply their friends on the quiet. It’s logical to assume that a few million will share the joy with friends. So long as they are not selling there is not much chance they can be caught or stopped. Even if the government levies hefty fines on miscreants, the expense involved in catching and prosecuting every weed-whacker who shares his crop would defeat the purpose. And can you image eight or nine million grasshoppers demanding jury trials? Alcohol First, watering holes are an integral part of culture not to mention the huge amount of money spent on barroom furnishings, etc. There is a time-honored, acceptable, social intercourse involved in drinking in gin mills. I think that alcohol sales will be hit hard because grasshoppers don’t have to do their smoking in bars. If, as I believe, tens of millions will grow their own they won’t be welcomed in “Pot Bars” anymore than tipplers can bring their own booze into drinking establishments. I don’t have the breakdown on beer, wine, and hard liquor, but I’m fairly certain that most alcohol is consumed by customers in bars. Beer might be split fifty-fifty between bars and elsewhere. Nor can I see private parties in homes just to smoke a joint or two; at least not on a large scale. Smoking pot is not a social-gathering type activity. Grasshoppers get behind a little steam whenever the mood moves them; whereas, ordinary drinkers don’t pull out a hip flask and take a pull whenever and wherever they need a fix. Tobacco The unintended consequences in making an honest woman out of Mary Jane will take a huge bite out of cigarette and alcohol sales; followed by a tremendous lose of tax revenues from both. There is not one state that can survive that kind of a hit; so I don’t expect to see legal marijuana any time soon. Tobacco is a long-term thing. I suspect that pot smokers will gradually wean themselves off cigarettes and even cigars. The price of cigarettes is already out of sight because of taxation. The tax on tobacco will skyrocket if Mary Jane ever cuts into remaining cigarette sales. Incidentally, should pot be decriminalized “How To Grow” books will quickly outnumber diet books on bookstore shelves. Finally, if Mr. Happyweed does have a real shot at going legal let’s do it as quickly as possible. I would really like to see how the courts deal with the personal-use issue? And won’t it be a kick watching anti-tobacco moralists sing a different tune when they have to get behind a little legal steam for tax purposes? June 18, 2011 Legalization Won’t Kill the Cartels By SYLVIA LONGMIRE St. Louis http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html?_r=1
I'd like to know how Longmire is coming up with the idea that tens of millions of pot smokers will suddenly begin to grow their own weed if marijuana were illegalized. Her own admittance that few people brew their own alcohol flies in the face of such a claim. Furthermore, I been smoking marijuana on and off for about 15 years. I've met hundreds of pot smokers during that time from all over the country, and only 2 of them have regularly grown their own. It's not that simple of a thing to do right, and considering large commercial producers would be putting out a better product than many home-growers, just like with alcohol, I have a hard time imagining that the government would not be able to make significant tax profits from its sale.
To Joker: A carton of cigarettes costs around $80. Smoking a pack a day at $8 a pack comes to just under $3,000 a year. More in places like NYC. Each cigarette costs 80 cents and its rising. The price of one joint will travel the same pricing route much faster than it took for cigarettes to get there. Balance that against a flower pot, a little water, or a backyard. Just so I am not understood. I am all for making Mary Jane a respectable woman; nevertheless, I stand by my comments in the OP.
then why aren't people growing their own tobacco? brewing their own beer? Your own arguments are working against you.
Frankly I wasn't able to understand what Flanders point was, but from what I understand pot is much easier to grow that tobacco. But that said and done- in California, anyone who is legally allowed to buy from a pot club is allowed to grow pot for personal use- yet the pot clubs are thriving, even though they sell at street prices or higher. So our actual current example is that people will still buy pot rather than grow their own for the most part. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Less taxes would be brought in than proponents claim, less damage would result than what opponents claim. More importantly, it would remove the main damage of prohibition- criminalizing personal behavior and reducing the money going to criminals.
To rahl: I am not going explain the obvious. Figure it out for yourself. To SFJEFF: My point(s) should have been conspicuous to an astute fellow like you.
Decriminalizing marijuana is moving forward: The bill, which is expected to be introduced on Thursday by Republican Representative Ron Paul and Democratic Representative Barney Frank, would be the first ever legislation designed to end the federal ban on marijuana. Presidential candidate Ron Paul aint letting grass grow under his feet so to speak. He now has a lock on a substantial voting bloc: Grasshoppers. Lawmakers to introduce bill to legalize marijuana By Luis Robayo | AFP 9 hours ago A group of US representatives plan to introduce legislation that will legalize marijuana and allow states to legislate its use, pro-marijuana groups said Wednesday. The legislation would limit the federal government's role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, and allow people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal. The bill, which is expected to be introduced on Thursday by Republican Representative Ron Paul and Democratic Representative Barney Frank, would be the first ever legislation designed to end the federal ban on marijuana. Sixteen of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes. But planting, selling or commercially distributing marijuana remains illegal under federal law. Last year, California citizens voted not to legalize recreational marijuana use, although the debate continues in about half a dozen other states. Three weeks ago a group of ex-presidents of Latin America as well as former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan denounced the failure of the global war on drugs and called for urgent changes, including the legalization of cannabis. Between 1998 and 2008, worldwide consumption of opiates increased 35 percent, with cocaine use growing 27 percent and marijuana use growing 8.5 percent, according to the Global Commission on Drug Policy. June marks the 40th anniversary of the "War on Drugs" launched by President Richard Nixon in 1970, the first major US anti-drug initiative. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-introduce-bill-legalize-marijuana-225335489.html
Why don't you just start your own blog if all you wanna do his spew out your own opinions without having to reply to people who disagree? This a debate forum.
I think the problem with your arguments is that your just way out of touch. I did think ordinary pot smokers smoke alone, I would like you to provide some evidence for some of your claims. Tobacco and alcohol sales will take a big hit if marijuana were legal? Are you implying that pot smokers don't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes? If so, can you provide some statistics to back up that claim?
To Joker: Demanding answers to loaded questions is a debating tactic liberals favor. Ive seen a few angry libs try it on panels on TV talk shows. Asking questions does not make it a debate. Just because an opposite responds to my messages does not guarantee a reply from me. Nor is it my responsibility to explain everything to opposites with faulty reading comprehension skills and an inability to think things through. Incidentally, I dont mind both tricks. Every once in a while I use a question, or an explanation, to elaborate on a topic. That usually keeps liberals awake all night trying to figure out their next response. Lefties also love to engage in Socratic elenchus where they can go around and around without saying anything then call it a debate. I dont play that game either. All of those tricks might work face to face. Inevitably, written text shows that liberals dont know what they are talking about; hence, they quickly learn to ask questions, ask for proof of an opinion, or engage in personal attacks rather than putting their own views up for criticism. Having said the above, I do debate, but I decide when and which topic. For instance, I am debating you right now. To Joker: Im not providing anything. Youre free to provide statistics that dispute my claims.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. By the way, I found this on the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau website: http://www.ttb.gov/faqs/genalcohol.shtml
Research making a beer & wine for PERSONAL USE. Start with his link: http://www.nonconfermist.com/2007/12/law-is-homebrewing-beer-legal.html
There is lots of people who make their own alcoholic beverages for personal consumption and there is an entire legal industry of some $Billion that supports them in their efforts though it is a tiny niche in the booze industry. It takes some dedicated effort and much practice to make quality booze. It takes even more dedication to grow quality marijuana. Having much past experience doing both and having given both up, I am doubtful that many people will make the effort to grow marijuana if it is readily available through other means as long as the price is not prohibitive and the quality acceptable.
"Nor can I see private parties in homes just to smoke a joint or two; at least not on a large scale. Smoking pot is not a social-gathering type activity. Grasshoppers get behind a little steam whenever the mood moves them; whereas, ordinary drinkers dont pull out a hip flask and take a pull whenever and wherever they need a fix." Really rather a statement of ignorance.
To unrealist42: Its not making the product, its the bottling that dissuades drinkers from brewing their own not to mention the number of ingredients in alcohol; whereas, marijuana has only one component, and there is no extraneous expense and labor attached to growing your own. Nature does 95 percent of the work. As to acceptable quality: Homegrown products will meet the individuals standards whatever they might be. To SFJEFF: You previously said: Frankly I wasn't able to understand what Flanders point was, but from what I understand pot is much easier to grow that tobacco. I guess you did not understand this point either: Oh what delight To be given the right To be carefree and gay once again No longer slinking Respectably drinking Like civilized ladies and men No longer need we miss A charming scene like this Refrain: In some secluded rendevous That overlooks the avenue With someone sharing a delightful chat Of this and that And cocktails for two As we enjoy a cigarette to some exquisite chansonette Two hands are sure to slyly meet beneath the serviette With cocktails for two My head may go reeling But my heart will be obedient With intoxicating kisses For the principle ingredient Most any afternoon at five Well be so glad were both alive Then maybe fortune will complete the plan That all began With cocktails for two Its Cocktails For TWO. Discounting a small number of closet drinkers, there is a social activity in play even if one goes to a tavern and sits alone. On the other hand, the only social activity involved in blowing steam is blowing steam. In short: Drinking is wrapped in social mores, smoking grass is not and never will be. Also note: As we enjoy a cigarette to some exquisite chansonette Traditionally, smoking cigarettes and drinking adult beverages went hand in hand. Marijuana eliminates the alcohol. At least that is the claim grasshoppers have been making for decades.
I don't disagree with you that legalization of marijuana will mean more people will grow it. I disagree that it will equal out to tax revenues will be miniscule. I'd probably take a shot at growing my own marijuana if it were legalized. However I know I'd still purchase marijuana as well. Like a great deal of Americans, I don't have the space to enough marijuana to supply myself indefinitely (many Americans don't have any space at all), along with all the vegetables I grow. Homegrown yields are unreliable, and year-round indoor growing is expensive both economically and with labor to maintain. Even if I were able to supply myself with a continuous supply of homegrown marijuana, I'd still buy expensive high quality supplies. I enjoy mixing different varieties together. For me, homegrown would be a bank of buds to rely on if I'm too strapped for cash to buy something better. First of all, marijuana users are already conditioned to accept outrageous prices. Right now, the cost of a carton's worth of joints is roughly $500 to $1000, and that's really only because it is illegal. Prices would likely drop significantly if marijuana were legalized, and even if they stabilized at a rate equal to the current rate for cigarettes, marijuana users would still consider it an incredible cost decrease. No, I've long ago lost my taste for outrageous rants about anything. You can derail your own thread with off-topic rants about how much you hate liberals, but I'm not going to sucked into immature and pointless ramblings. Touche. You've finally put together a coherent argument. I'm proud of you. However, you still haven't provided and facts to support your opinion that the alcohol and tobacco industries would suffer if marijuana were legalized.
Are you really sure about all this? There's few things better to me than sitting at a BBQ with a circle of friends smoking a couple of joints, drinking a few beers, and smoking way too many cigarettes.
Good Lord! Now its going too far: Archaeology Did Shakespeare Smoke Weed? Let's Dig Him Up and Find Out By Alec Liu Published June 23, 2011 FoxNews.com http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/23/did-shakespeare-smoke-weed/?test=faces British grasshoppers appear to be stealing a page from the gay playbook. As soon as I read the article I was reminded of something I said in a previous thread: Not many years ago color coordinated gays claimed, as one of their own, every creative artist that ever wrote a play, composed an opera, smeared paint on canvas, or chiseled away at a piece of marble. Michelangelos talent was the face they tried to put on homosexuality. http://www.politicalforum.com/united-states/174682-tying-up-loose-ends.html
American news organizations are so manipulative. Thackeray wants to examine Shakespeare's remains to learn more about how he died and create a full health history, which would just happen to also confirm or deny speculation that he might have smoked marijuana, but FoxNews writes a headline as if pot is the main focus. How do you know Thackeray and his team of scientists smoke marijuana?
To Joker: I dont, nor did I say they did. I said: British grasshoppers appear to be stealing a page from the gay playbook. It was my way of saying that grasshoppers in general might try to go the same route gays went with artists if scientists prove Shakespeare enjoyed a pipeful now and again. On the other hand, Thackeray and his team could be grasshoppers with a political agenda. I doubt if scientists would spend the time and money investigating such a thing if nobody cared about Shakespeares smoking habits. Who, besides grasshoppers, want to know? Incidentally, Im considering charging a Reading Comprehension fee every time I am asked to explain something. To SFJEFF: How do you come up with these snappy retorts? You must be getting help.
You should just say what you mean in the first place. I don't know, maybe people who just enjoy learning about all the details about history. I'd be interested to know if Shakespeare smoked pot; I'd also be curious to know if he were a homosexual, but I'm not gay. I just like learning about important people in history. He also abandoned his family in Stratford-Upon-Avon to persue his career as a playwright and actor in London, and it is widely believed he cheated on his wife with numerous women. Shakespeare was quite the character. Oh, that's right. I forgot. We're not supposed to question your unsubstantiated opinions; we're supposed to accept them as the absolute truth whether or not you offer any facts to support them. My bad. Incidentally, you still haven't offered any facts to support your opinion that legalizing marijuana would ruin the tobacco and alcohol industries. Should I assume that is because there are no facts to support said opinion, or is it just that asking for facts to back up your opinions is a question that's just a little too loaded and way too liberal for your taste?
