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

[Locke]

What about the destruction of taxpayers? I dont know too many potheads that pay much in taxes.

[Senator Clay Davis]

MarchHare nails it. The savings from no longer having to pursue marijuana related crimes, which is absurdly costly in America, is the number one reason to legalize it.

[Boshi]

Well Locke, that's quite wrong. I'd suggest a great documentary for any interested in viewing things on a broader scale: http://youtu.be/wfxaJQVxSA4

It's a well done docu that covers many aspects of marijuana, why it's illegal, and the myths associated.

Bed time for me, peace.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Locke

What about the destruction of taxpayers? I dont know too many potheads that pay much in taxes.

Correlation != causation

I'm speculating, but if pot was legalized, you might find there would be a more diverse group of users than the stereotypical unemployed stoner or college frat boy.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I'm curious why its irrelavent? Does it not matter that the drug is a safe, organic drug, versus a chemical creation? If you're for alcohol being legal (and I'd assume you would be), then how can anyone be against a drug that doesn't get chemically modified, and that has been proven to be safer than many of its legal, chemically modified counterparts?

I agree that if your only argument is "its a plant", then its pretty weak. Its more of a supporting argument to the overriding fact that its safer than alcohol, which is legal. For instance I would never use "Its a plant" as my first reason for wanting it legal, but if I were to say its safer than alcohol or pharmaceuticals, showing its a safe, non-chemically manipulated drug is a good supporting argument.

It's irrelevant becasue it's not a logically sound agrument.

The fact that it's a plant has nothing to do with it's safety.
There are a ton of plants that are deadly to people, and there are a ton of things made in a lab that are 100% safe for people.

Being a plant isn't sufficient to condlude that something is safe, so using it as an argument for pot's safety is simply incorrect.

If you want to make a valid argument that it is a safe substance then point to studies on it's toxicology or talk about the individual components, and their effects on people. Don't say "it's a plant" because that doesn't mean or prove a darn thing.

Saying it's a plant so it's safe isn't any more relevant that me saying advil is safe, so meth must be too.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

As far as ######ed arguments goes, this might be the most ######ed. Well maybe ######ed is a bit harsh, dumb is a better word. Pot isn't illegal because people are against it, or because it has great harm on society, its illegal because certain interest groups want it so. Majorities here and in the US want it legal.

When you say majorities are you referring to the 54% of California voters who voted against proposition 19?

Pot has been banned in the US starting in the 1920's. Are you alleging that the Liquor and Pharmacy groups have been keeping it banned for almost 100 years. That is quite the conspiracy, but stating it out loud doesn't help your claim that pot is harmless.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

When you say majorities are you referring to the 54% of California voters who voted against proposition 19?

Pot has been banned in the US starting in the 1920's. Are you alleging that the Liquor and Pharmacy groups have been keeping it banned for almost 100 years. That is quite the conspiracy, but stating it out loud doesn't help your claim that pot is harmless.

Pot is harmless compared the pharmaceuticals and alcohol. If you disagree, I'll never be able to convince you otherwise except for a challenge that can be done.

Pot being illegal was at one point a more popular stance. It isn't anymore, but if you don't think pharma and alcoholic companies are working to keep it illegal, again I won't be able to convince you otherwise. There are myriad of reasons why they would want to keep it illegal.

As to that 54%, wanna guess who the number one group was that donated to the opposition effort?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Pot is harmless compared the pharmaceuticals and alcohol. If you disagree, I'll never be able to convince you otherwise except for a challenge that can be done.

Pot being illegal was at one point a more popular stance. It isn't anymore, but if you don't think pharma and alcoholic companies are working to keep it illegal, again I won't be able to convince you otherwise. There are myriad of reasons why they would want to keep it illegal.

As to that 54%, wanna guess who the number one group was that donated to the opposition effort?

A couple peer reviewed, double blind studies, by reputable sceintists, that have been published in scientific journals would do the trick.

That's the problem I have with pro-legalization folks. They don't present suportable postions. They say things like "It's a plant so it's safe", or "It's only illegal because Segrams and Marlborough want it that way".

Make a real argument and you might actually convince some people.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I suspect if marijuana were to be legalized, consumers would spend less on other recreational drugs such as alcohol and/or tobacco. Does the report make an estimate for this lost tax revenue?

Why would legal weed change tobacco habits? They seem (almost) completely unrelated to me. Sure, you smoke both, but you don't get high from a cigarette.

As for booze... pretty much anyone (everyone?) who wants marijuana can get it already. They'd still be drinking as much (or as little, or not at all) as they do now.

I know it's a niggling little point, but it always makes me scratch my head, because they don't seem all that connected other than for the "sin" aspect.

If anyone wants to drink booze, smoke weed, or smoke cigarettes, they can do it today. A change in the law wouldn't change their habits.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Azure

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/arc...ver-five-years

I would imagine not arresting 10,000 people annually would save a lot of money and resources. Not sure how this will turn out, but adding $1.9b in revenue over 5 years is pretty good. Alberta could probably fix any spending problem they COULD have in the future, and Canada could probably balance the budget if they legalized it.

I can see no reason for pot to be illegal. But, I don't really buy that this is financially a good thing.

That tax revenue is going to come from somewhere. Basically taking 19 billion out of the economy and trusting the government will spend it better. I imagine it will put a lot of people in the drug trade out of work too. They will either join the already crowded job market, go on social assistance or move to something
ore serious on the criminal scale. Can be negatives associated with all of those. all

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I think one of the strongest arguments for legalizing pot is that it is non-lethal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot overdose and die from smoking too much weed.

Also, I don't think legalization will turn the nation into some Cheech & Chong movie, but it will provide some much needed revenue.

Ok WTF is going on?!!

I have agreed with you twice today

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

A couple peer reviewed, double blind studies, by reputable sceintists, that have been published in scientific journals would do the trick.

That's the problem I have with pro-legalization folks. They don't present suportable postions. They say things like "It's a plant so it's safe", or "It's only illegal because Segrams and Marlborough want it that way".

Make a real argument and you might actually convince some people.

Here's the challenge:

I'll smoke 500 joints
You have 500 shots of everclear

We'll see who's going to wake up.

Seriously, alcohol can kill you. Pharamaceuticals can kill you. Pot can kill you, not because of the pot, because you'll eat yourself to death from the munchies. But I could smoke 1,000 joints and live. I couldn't pop 1,000 Xanax and live. I couldn't take 1,000 shots and live. I don't need science to point out the painfully obvious.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

When you say majorities are you referring to the 54% of California voters who voted against proposition 19?

Pot has been banned in the US starting in the 1920's. Are you alleging that the Liquor and Pharmacy groups have been keeping it banned for almost 100 years. That is quite the conspiracy, but stating it out loud doesn't help your claim that pot is harmless.

I think that hemps value as a source of fibre was also a cause for the emerging synthetic fibre industry as well...

Again...I think the main barrier to legalization is special interest group protecting markets

-Liquor
-Pharma
-Chemical
-Prison (Any system where the prisons make revenue for each prisoner will create lobbies incited to keep laws on the books that create more prisoners)

[Boshi]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

A couple peer reviewed, double blind studies, by reputable sceintists, that have been published in scientific journals would do the trick.

That's the problem I have with pro-legalization folks. They don't present suportable postions. They say things like "It's a plant so it's safe", or "It's only illegal because Segrams and Marlborough want it that way".

Make a real argument and you might actually convince some people.

Health
Doesn't cause lung cancer http://www.thoracic.org/sections/pub...ng-cancer.html
Doesn't cause lung cancer http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...5F83414B7F0000
Doesn't cause brain damage http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/n...t-damage-brain
Negligible risk http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4305
Minimal Effect on Central Nervous System http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0630112652.htm
Doesn't cause oral cancer http://www.news.uiuc.edu/NEWS/04/0608oralcancer.html
Doesn't cause cancer http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0607/Oct16_06/01.shtml
Pot shrinks tumors http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/
Government perspective http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html
Negligible consequences of using marijuana when pregnant http://www.mothering.com/articles/pr...ana-side4.html

Addiction
Comparision http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/...c/addictiv.htm
Not addictive http://www.utmedicalgroup.com/pages/...addiction.html
Research http://www.stats.org/stories/2007/do...y_feb09_07.htm

Medicinal
Shrinks tumors http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/
Slows artery clogging http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the...l_marijua.html
Pot’s cancer healing properties
http://www.november.org/stayinfo/bre...cerKiller.html
Cannabis Reduces Skin Cancer
http://www.onlinepot.org/medical/skincancerreport.htm
Cancer - various/ unnamed
Derivatives of cannabis for anti-cancer treatment
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...o-do060605.php


Uses http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...s_wonder_drug/
Pain Relief http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021201332.html
Halts growth of Lung cancer tumors http://nallforgovernor.blogspot.com/...h-of-lung.html
Boosts brain cell growth http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com...lth_news.shtml
Very scientific article on effects http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...gi?artid=33571
Many uses http://www.abovetheignorance.org/
Medical studies http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/geninfo/research.htm
Reduces lung cancer tumor growth http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0417193338.htm
Marijuana is safe http://www.schmoo.co.uk/thclub/research.htm
Protects against Alzheimer's http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4286435.stm
Protects against Alzheimer's http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0224111638.htm
Protects against Alzheimer's http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2072101.shtml

Dr. Lester Grinspoon also published a book called "Marijuana Reconsidered" way back in the day. He's also featured in the youtube link I gave a few postings ago. People can wake up if they do some research.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Correlation != causation

I'm speculating, but if pot was legalized, you might find there would be are a more diverse group of users than the stereotypical unemployed stoner or college frat boy.

There are lots of people who smoke pot who are just really good at keeping a secret for legal and stigmatic reasons. I have a feeling that most people know more pot smokers than they realize.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

A couple peer reviewed, double blind studies, by reputable sceintists, that have been published in scientific journals would do the trick.

That's the problem I have with pro-legalization folks. They don't present suportable postions. They say things like "It's a plant so it's safe", or "It's only illegal because Segrams and Marlborough want it that way".

Make a real argument and you might actually convince some people.

I agree completely with your point, but you'll find that the available scientific literature does favour the position of those who support legalization. Medically, marijuana is no more harmful than other legal recreational drugs.

About a decade ago, the Canadian Senate studied the issue for two years, interviewing hundreds of experts, and recommended legalization.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Co.../04sep02-e.htm

OTTAWA, September 4, 2002 - The Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs today released its final report on cannabis. In an exhaustive and comprehensive two-year study of public policy related to marijuana, the Special Committee found that the drug should be legalized. The 600 plus page Senate report is a result of rigorous research, analysis and extensive public hearings in Ottawa and communities throughout Canada with experts and citizens.

“Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue”, said Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, Chair of the Special Committee, in a news conference today in Ottawa. “Indeed, domestic and international experts and Canadians from every walk of life told us loud and clear that we should not be imposing criminal records on users or unduly prohibiting personal use of cannabis. At the same time, make no mistake, we are not endorsing cannabis use for recreational consumption. Whether or not an individual uses marijuana should be a personal choice that is not subject to criminal penalties. But we have come to the conclusion that, as a drug, it should be regulated by the State much as we do for wine and beer, hence our preference for legalization over decriminalization.”

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I think that hemps value as a source of fibre was also a cause for the emerging synthetic fibre industry as well...

Again...I think the main barrier to legalization is special interest group protecting markets

-Liquor
-Pharma
-Chemical
-Prison (Any system where the prisons make revenue for each prisoner will create lobbies incited to keep laws on the books that create more prisoners)

At the dawn of the 20th century, hemp was America's top crop. Hemp was in heavy competition with medicine, oil and paper. Soon after it was classified as a narcotic. There was also a propaganda campaign that made it taboo, and that only black people smoked the weed.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Ok WTF is going on?!!

I have agreed with you twice today

I'm curious ......what else did you agree with me on today?

But seriously, you should get yourself checked....

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Here's the challenge:

I'll smoke 500 joints
You have 500 shots of everclear

We'll see who's going to wake up.

Seriously, alcohol can kill you. Pharamaceuticals can kill you. Pot can kill you, not because of the pot, because you'll eat yourself to death from the munchies. But I could smoke 1,000 joints and live. I couldn't pop 1,000 Xanax and live. I couldn't take 1,000 shots and live. I don't need science to point out the painfully obvious.

Dude, like I said, I don't give a crap if pot is legal or not.
What I'm saying is learn how to make a valid argument.

Do you honestly think saying "Hey if you drink an unreasonalbe ammount of booze you'll die" is somehow going to convince anyone that you now what you're talking about?

Yes, I know booze will kill me if I drink too much, but how is that relevant to pot?
If you want to make a strong argument for pot being legal it should stand on it's own. It shouldn't rely on a comparison to something else.
Hell, cigaretts are slowly being phased out. It wouldn't supprise me to see them completely banned in my lifetime, so why would so many like you want to use them as a comparible to why pot should be legal?

I'm not arguing with you about wheter or not pot should be legal, I don't care. What I'm arguing is that so many on the pro side, can't seem to make a valid argument that stands on it's own.

[Senator Clay Davis]

"Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see." - Thomas Jefferson