Should the possession of marijuana be legal?

[Atlanticatia]

The tax is for pot DEALERS and GROWERS through licencing just like the licencing for hard liquor which in the case of pot will pay for itself and then some.

The person that started this line of debate wanted to "tax the shit out" marijuana.

It's moronic. The black market in weed is probably the best functioning black market in physical good. You cannot tax the shit out of it. People will continue to buy illegally. There is some premium to be paid for buying it legally, and safely, at a licensed dealer. But taxing the shit out of it, will make the price disparity too high.

Even applying just a normal sales tax, and gradually transitioning to a higher excise tax won't make the market go underground. There isn't a huge underground tobacco or alcohol market. Obviously if it's legalized tomorrow, with a $50 excise tax, people won't go buy it legally.
But if it's legalized tomorrow with a normal sales tax applied, people will choose legally buying it from a store that will be guaranteed to provide a safe, quality product, rather than buying it from a sketchy dealer. And then as the underground market begins to disappear, taxes can go up slowly. Tobacco taxes are at all time highs in many countries, yet the underground market isn't significantly large.

[Slovenya]

Yes. You should probably expand your OP, though.

he's probably too high to

[Othelos]

Yes. You should probably expand your OP, though.

he's probably too high to

hahahahahaha no.

[Coccygia]

There is a big problem with libertarian arguments about legalizing drugs: they assume that someone who uses drugs is "only hurting himself". (This is the war cry of many an addict/alcoholic). This is untrue: the addict/alcoholic harms everyone in his orbit - family (most of all), friends, employers, co-workers, employees, as well as any total strangers unlucky enough to fall into his gravity well (like a family of five struck by a drunk driver, say.) I am not arguing for resuming Prohibition, of course; we already know that didn't work. Nor am I necessarily arguing against legalizing marijuana (but we should be clear-eyed about this, and realize that uit will cause some serious problems). But I am most definitely not for legalizing everything, as some people are. You really want to legalize meth? Angel dust? Jimson weed? To name but a few of the worst prospects. And I make the point that you can't just say "It's none of the gummint's business what I do to myself." Because, as I say, it is not just to oneself. Remember the old saw? "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." Well, an addict/alcoholic is like a freaking windmill of fists, and is usually the last to realize it.

Divorce harms kids and spouses. It also hurts employers as productivity drops. Ban divorce!

Kids have the best results if their parents are married Asian couples with children. Ban everyone except married Asian couples with children from having kids!

Driving kills more than 30 thousand people per year. Ban driving!

1 in 3 black males have a felony on their record. Ban black males!

Arguments hurt people all the time. Ban arguing!

Your argument is moronic. Ban morons!

Six strawmans in a row...is that a record? Actually the sixth is not even an argument, just a gratuitous insult.

[Genivaria]

Of course it should be, our prisons could use the relief.

[Othelos]

There is a big problem with libertarian arguments about legalizing drugs: they assume that someone who uses drugs is "only hurting himself". (This is the war cry of many an addict/alcoholic). This is untrue: the addict/alcoholic harms everyone in his orbit - family (most of all), friends, employers, co-workers, employees, as well as any total strangers unlucky enough to fall into his gravity well (like a family of five struck by a drunk driver, say.) I am not arguing for resuming Prohibition, of course; we already know that didn't work. Nor am I necessarily arguing against legalizing marijuana (but we should be clear-eyed about this, and realize that uit will cause some serious problems). But I am most definitely not for legalizing everything, as some people are. You really want to legalize meth? Angel dust? Jimson weed? To name but a few of the worst prospects. And I make the point that you can't just say "It's none of the gummint's business what I do to myself." Because, as I say, it is not just to oneself. Remember the old saw? "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." Well, an addict/alcoholic is like a freaking windmill of fists, and is usually the last to realize it.

Well alcohol is already legal, and people get addicted to it.

[Meryuma]

Yes. Don't heavily regulate or tax it, that just criminalizes use among the lower class, maintaining the failed dynamic of the War on Drugs. Also institute balanced drug education in schools rather than propaganda that only shows the positives or negatives of substances.

(Also, the concept of actively wanting marijuana use to be punished seems really weird to me culturally. I've grew up in Seattle all my life and weed is just kind of a fact of life.)

but eeew, marijuana smells gross D:
Just staying in the room with the guys doing it makes me see weird stuff..

Marijuana isn't a hallucinogen... Also,

We don't need stoners running around. Most people that want Marijuana to be legalised aren't responsible with using it. It should be legalised, but with a license or official documents stating that the Marijuana user will be responsible around the drug. And for the people who want hard drugs legalised - Many people have died from overdoses of Cocaine and Heroin. The ban on those drugs save lives.

The worst that can happen with weed is you get chubby and lazy and sit around listening to Pink Floyd all day. It's not a menace. Also, bans on hard drugs don't make people do hard drugs less, they just put stigma on users and the threat of punishment and that just drives hard drug addicts to use whatever substances more.

All drugs should be legal. This doesn't mean anyone is promoting harder, more dangerous drugs such as heroin, it's just that who cares what others are putting n their bodies. I would only suggest the use of phycedelics (best drugs ever, man!)

I like the concept of psychedelics but I'm afraid they would be psychologically dangerous because I have OCD and am prone to panic attacks.

I agree with the legalization of soft drugs (For exemple, marijuana or "weed")

I disagree with the legalization or hard drugs (Cocaine, heroin, meth, etc...)

The government would then have to distinguise them. Would LSD be considered a hard drug? MSD has huge effects, as a phycedilic, should that be legal?

I don't consider psychedelics to be hard because iirc they can't cause serious physical damage or physical addiction. Hard drugs = opiates, amphetamines

I agree with the legalization of soft drugs (For exemple, marijuana or "weed")

I disagree with the legalization or hard drugs (Cocaine, heroin, meth, etc...)

Do you own yourself?

No, you are yourself, and are incapable of being owned by anyone. Ownership is a relation between a sentient being and an external object. For a person to both be and own themself simultaneously is a logical paradox unless taken metaphorically or viewed in a dualist light (i.e. the mind owning the body or something similar), which has many problems of its own.

Nor am I necessarily arguing against legalizing marijuana (but we should be clear-eyed about this, and realize that uit will cause some serious problems).

People giggling all day and eating too many Fritos is apparently a more serious problem than completely non-violent and non-coercive offenders spending years in for-profit prisons (with a notably higher frequency if they're black, of course) and returning to society as marked felons.

[Sibirsky]

Divorce harms kids and spouses. It also hurts employers as productivity drops. Ban divorce!

Kids have the best results if their parents are married Asian couples with children. Ban everyone except married Asian couples with children from having kids!

Driving kills more than 30 thousand people per year. Ban driving!

1 in 3 black males have a felony on their record. Ban black males!

Arguments hurt people all the time. Ban arguing!

Your argument is moronic. Ban morons!

Six strawmans in a row...is that a record? Actually the sixth is not even an argument, just a gratuitous insult.

That was a comment on the quality of your "argument." Or the lack thereof.

[Coccygia]

Six strawmans in a row...is that a record? Actually the sixth is not even an argument, just a gratuitous insult.

That was a comment on the quality of your "argument." Or the lack thereof.

Pretty stupid comment, then.

[Sibirsky]

That was a comment on the quality of your "argument." Or the lack thereof.

Pretty stupid comment, then.

And yet less stupid than your argument.

[Beiluxia]

Marijuana possession is already legal in my state of Colorado... I'm still not sure how I feel about Amendment 64.

[Sibirsky]

Marijuana possession is already legal in my state of Colorado... I'm still not sure how I feel about Amendment 64.

There is only one rational way to view it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Divorce harms kids and spouses. It also hurts employers as productivity drops. Ban divorce!

Kids have the best results if their parents are married Asian couples with children. Ban everyone except married Asian couples with children from having kids!

Driving kills more than 30 thousand people per year. Ban driving!

1 in 3 black males have a felony on their record. Ban black males!

Arguments hurt people all the time. Ban arguing!

Your argument is moronic. Ban morons!

Six strawmans in a row...is that a record? Actually the sixth is not even an argument, just a gratuitous insult.

Look, I'm the last person to defend Sibirsky, but those weren't "strawmans" (or, rather, strawmen). That was reducto ad absurdum, and it worked.

[Coccygia]

Pretty stupid comment, then.

And yet less stupid than your argument.

5 strawman arguments and an insult, and he (and you) are calling me a moron?

Six strawmans in a row...is that a record? Actually the sixth is not even an argument, just a gratuitous insult.

Look, I'm the last person to defend Sibirsky, but those weren't "strawmans" (or, rather, strawmen). That was reducto ad absurdum, and it worked.

No, those were strawmen, and they did not work. I did not say that things should automatically be banned because of their destructiveness (did you notice where I said the Prohibition of alcohol didn't work?) although in the case of meth, angel dust, and jimson weed, I implied it, and I am quite comfortable with these remaining banned. And you misspelled reductio, weisenheimer.

And frankly, if that's the best you can come up with, maybe you three should lay off the dope.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And yet less stupid than your argument.

5 strawman arguments and an insult, and he (and you) are calling me a moron?

Look, I'm the last person to defend Sibirsky, but those weren't "strawmans" (or, rather, strawmen). That was reducto ad absurdum, and it worked.

No, those were strawmen, and they did not work. I did not say that things should automatically be banned because of their destructiveness (did you notice where I said the Prohibition of alcohol didn't work?) although in the case of meth, angel dust, and jimson weed, I implied it, and I am quite comfortable with these remaining banned. And you misspelled reductio, weisenheimer.

And frankly, if that's the best you can come up with, maybe you three should lay off the dope.

I'm not "coming up with" anything. I'm simply stating that you mischaracterized his argument. If the best that you have is to point out a typo of mine, then perhaps you're not smoking enough of it.

[Atlanticatia]

Yes. Don't heavily regulate or tax it, that just criminalizes use among the lower class, maintaining the failed dynamic of the War on Drugs.

I agree with legalisation, but why would we not tax it? It's likely that people would generally end up no worse nor better off (the price of marijuana would drop exponentially as economies of scale are utilized and it becomes more available legally), and then that reduction would be filled in by taxation. Taxing something like marijuana isn't 'criminalizing the lower class', no more than taxing cigarettes does. For example, taxing marijuana could make it possible for sales tax to be removed from groceries or something.

[Augarundus]

No - teens that use marijuana should be forced into cages and raped. It's for their own good - a public health issue, really.

[The Scientific States]

Yes, of course. The criminalization of marijuana is not only expensive and a waste of government money, marijuana has also been proven to be safer than alcohol and tobacco. I don't smoke marijuana, and I don't think I ever will, but if someone does, that's fine with me.

[Boston and Surrounding Provinces]

Sure.

[New haven america]

Yes.

[The Scientific States]

Marijuana possession is already legal in my state of Colorado... I'm still not sure how I feel about Amendment 64.

So far, it's had a positive effect on the state. Your state no longer wastes a crapton of money jailing non-violent people who simply got high, or were in possession of marijuana. Plus, I'm sure gangs and cartels are losing revenue as it's easier to buy marijuana from a store in Colorado, not from a sketchy dealer. Lastly, your state government has made revenue from taxing marijuana as if it were alcohol. So, I view it positively.

[New haven america]

Marijuana possession is already legal in my state of Colorado... I'm still not sure how I feel about Amendment 64.

So far, it's had a positive effect on the state. Your state no longer wastes a crapton of money jailing non-violent people who simply got high, or were in possession of marijuana. Plus, I'm sure gangs and cartels are losing revenue as it's easier to buy marijuana from a store in Colorado, not from a sketchy dealer. Lastly, your state government has made revenue from taxing marijuana as if it were alcohol. So, I view it positively.

Except for El Paso County, Colorado, the only county in the entire state to keep the stuff banned.

[The Scientific States]

So far, it's had a positive effect on the state. Your state no longer wastes a crapton of money jailing non-violent people who simply got high, or were in possession of marijuana. Plus, I'm sure gangs and cartels are losing revenue as it's easier to buy marijuana from a store in Colorado, not from a sketchy dealer. Lastly, your state government has made revenue from taxing marijuana as if it were alcohol. So, I view it positively.

Except for El Paso County, Colorado, the only county in the entire state to keep the stuff banned.

I was unaware of the fact that they did that. I'm not surprised, as the county is home to Colorado Springs, a bible thumping, hyper-conservative city.

[Lemanrussland]

Yes, but the use of marijuana should be regulated in the style of alcohol (no use by minors, no use in public, you can't drive a car while under the influence of marijuana, businesses distributing or producing marijuana need licensing etc.), and taxed to cover any expenses brought about by enforcement of these laws.

[Organized States]

Yes, but the use of marijuana should be regulated in the style of alcohol (no use by minors, no use in public, you can't drive a car while under the influence of marijuana, businesses distributing or producing marijuana need licensing etc.), and taxed to cover any expenses brought about by enforcement of these laws.

I totally agree with you.