Legalizing Pot in Washington State Could Add $1.9b in revenue

[V]

I just assumed pretty much everyone smoked pot, at least occasionally. I never have, but then most people I know have at some point.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Iginla

How does a pot smoker keep it secret?

Easy. It's a multipart process.

1) wear smoking clothes and wash them regularly
2) showers - take one after smoking
3) don't be a moron who is oblivious to the fact that when you smoke (anything) your sense of smell is diminished - always assume you smell if you smoked and have not showered.
4) Use distractory scents as well as hand sanitizer

[woob]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Increased tax revenue isn't even the most compelling fiscally-responsible reason to legalize marijuana. The savings from governments no longer having to police, prosecute, and imprison recreational pot users will likely be significantly more than any income from additional taxes.

Not sure if this has been mentioned previously in the thread (and I'm sure it's obvious), but I think this is the primary reason why it'll never be legalized. There is tonnes of money being spent on this by the government but there's also tonnes of money being made due to the criminalization of pot.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But thats not my argument as to why it should be legal. It was an observation that admitedly probably needs more context (yup, I know how pot is grown, not everyone does). But it wasn't me saying its a plant, it should be legal. It was more of "I know how its grown, its grown like most plants we eat", which should indicate its a safe plant.

That's my point though.
It doesn't matter if you're using it as an argument for legalization of not.
It's a plant, therefore it's safe is a false statement.
For that to be true it has to be true that being a plant is sufficent evidence that something is safe to consume.
That is not the case, as there are clearly many plants that are not safe.

That's my point, it's a completely invalid argument regardless of what point you're trying to make.

[nfotiu]

If something is going to be illegal and criminalized, then the burden of proof is on the side making it illegal to show that it is more dangerous, more harmful to society or more something than substances that are legal. Where is this proof or even rational supporting this argument?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Iginla

How does a pot smoker keep it secret? Their clothes usually reek like marijuana or their cars reek of marijuana.

I occasionally smoke weed, but most of my friends are weed addicts.

It's hilarious when they try to be all sneaky after having a session and then come over trying to hide it from my girlfriend. They come in totally oblivious that they all stink and it smells like Snoop Dogg had just lit up a fatty in my living room.

If you smoke weed there is a very good chance people all around you know you do.

Now you're going to make them paranoid.

[CampbellsTransgressions]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Now you're going to make them paranoid.

People with regular jobs and families are being put in prison for enjoying a fairly harmless substance that could be potentially less harmless if it were legalized (cleaner grows, store bought edibles to cut down on smoking, removing the gateway drug aspect to it). That is enough reason for me to question the illegality of it.

[Reaper]

nm

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

People with regular jobs and families are being put in prison for enjoying a fairly harmless substance that could be potentially less harmless if it were legalized (cleaner grows, store bought edibles to cut down on smoking, removing the gateway drug aspect to it). That is enough reason for me to question the illegality of it.

Oh yeah I agree with you 100% especially when you bring the gateway aspect into the argument. I was just having a little fun with my comment.

Myself I don't drink booze or smoke anything but I've been there and think I can still pick out pot smokers or other mood altering users without needing to rely on the smell.

[Flash Walken]

You live on the sunshine coast, I ain't buyin' what you're selling.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

This argument gets presented every time the legalize pot debate comes up, and it has to be the most ######ed argument ever.

Seriously, what difference does it make where it comes from.
Heroin, and cocaine both come from "Naturally grown plants", is that a valid argument for their legalization?
If you want to make a case for legalizing pot please for the love of god use rational, suportable, and relevant arguments to do it.

I really don't care either way if pot is legalized or not, actually that's not true, I really want pot to be legalized so I can stop hearing the same completely ######ed reasoning from the pro-legalization crowd.

Sort of. At least in the sense that as adult, tax-paying citizens of a country, we should be able to determine what we choose to put into our own bodies. They aren't my drugs, but I accept that hundreds of thousands of people can take cocaine and have it just be a social thing. If someone's gonna do Oxys or heroin, it makes no difference to me. Addicts will always be addicts, and they will always get their fix. So why waste time and money trying to prevent people from taking chemicals or plants to change the way they interact with the world, and start doing a little more focusing on the PROBLEMS that get people to start using? Namely depression, abuse, chaos etc.

We couldn't do that. That might require work. And thought. And we can't pay cops for that.

[nik-]

Cocaine and Heroin "at one point" originating from a plant has no comparison to marijuana.

[CampbellsTransgressions]

Originally Posted by Reaper

There is no gateway aspect to marijuana! Most people who smoke marijuana stop there. The people that move on to harder drugs from there would have done so even if they never smoked pot. Calling marijuana a gateway drug is like calling water a gateway liquid.

When I say gateway drug I mean that it in some cases it can give people easier access to harder drugs. The illegality of it is what makes it a gateway drug.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Oh yeah I agree with you 100% especially when you bring the gateway aspect into the argument. I was just having a little fun with my comment.

Myself I don't drink booze or smoke anything but I've been there and think I can still pick out pot smokers or other mood altering users without needing to rely on the smell.

I'm a fairly regular smoker that sometimes gets some bad paranoia. Nothing negative towards your post.

[Rathji]

I once talked to a pot user that claimed that there is no way the government would make anywhere near the taxes from pot that it does from booze and smokes, since it is really easy to grow enough for your own personal use.

Anyone able to comment on if this is likely correct?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I once talked to a pot user that claimed that there is no way the government would make anywhere near the taxes from pot that it does from booze and smokes, since it is really easy to grow enough for your own personal use.

Anyone able to comment on if this is likely correct?

It's pretty easy to make homebrew beer and wine, and with a little more dedication hard liquor, still lots of people buy it, even those who make their own.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I once talked to a pot user that claimed that there is no way the government would make anywhere near the taxes from pot that it does from booze and smokes, since it is really easy to grow enough for your own personal use.

Anyone able to comment on if this is likely correct?

Tough to say. If convenience stores or gas stations got in on the action it would almost certainly generate revenue even without a tax.

The government would need to offer cheaper than street prices, with similar quality and a variety similar to what people buy now.

I think their best course of action would be to hire experienced growers as government employees. Kind of like how Microsoft would give a hacker a job.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Boshi

lethal dose for death in human (well, it can be for other animals.. but we're talking about us)

LD50 is actually lethal to 50% of the population. Smaller doses can still be lethal to smaller percentages.

Originally Posted by nfotiu

If something is going to be illegal and criminalized, then the burden of proof is on the side making it illegal to show that it is more dangerous, more harmful to society or more something than substances that are legal. Where is this proof or even rational supporting this argument?

Boy am I glad that drugs/chemicals/structures/surguries etc. don't have their legalities assessed in the manner you described.

Having said that, pot is kind of different because it's not new. Your statement works if you limit to things that have previously been shown safe, which I would say marijuana has.

[Mr.Coffee]

I like this because it is a shining example of a broken political system (both countries).

A system whereby a decision like this which is so completely unadulterated slap in the face obvious is so mind numbingly difficult to achieve because of lobbyists and bi-partisanship, layered on the centuries-old usual difficulties of foreign pressures and stigma.

Does it not seem like today's politics are broken?

[MRCboicgy]

I'm so allergic to weed that I start sneezing uncontrollably with the slightest waft - hell, I can usually tell if someone has smoked it even if I can't smell it. It's really the only thing that causes me allergies.

I would hope, if legalized, they would be like the Dutch and make it available in certain places, so those of us who really don't care about the crap don't have to inhale it. I've had to bust two different units in my building just because they light up so often that I will literally spend hours sneezing the rest of the night.
And hey, since it's illegal/against condo board rules, it's within my rights to bust them.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

That's my point though.
It doesn't matter if you're using it as an argument for legalization of not.
It's a plant, therefore it's safe is a false statement.
For that to be true it has to be true that being a plant is sufficent evidence that something is safe to consume.
That is not the case, as there are clearly many plants that are not safe.

That's my point, it's a completely invalid argument regardless of what point you're trying to make.

If your objecting to the its a plant argument crowd the shouldnt you also be objecting to the whole concept that their needs to be a justification to make illegal.

The argument is entirely backwards. Anytime a freedom is being removed The burdan of proof should lie on the people taking away a freedom to prove it is harmful and not on the users to prove it is okay. The worst arguments by far are one the anti legalization side which are

Drugs are bad
And
Marijauna is a gateway drug

I would rather here plants are good as a generic argument than drugs are bad mmmkay