Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/3/14 at 2:41 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Do you disagree with legalization?
Isn't it obvious?
Posted on 6/3/14 at 2:41 pm to Sleeping Tiger
I'm not a big fan of legalization. But it does appear to be an appropriate thing for a state to consider. So, if Colorado wants it, I'm fine with Colorado having it.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 2:41 pm to the808bass
quote:
This happened many moons ago with the lottery. The lottery was going to save education. It hasn't. Pitching sin taxes as a reason to legalize the activity is a useful argument for gaining votes and really doesn't change much.
I agree with this, there are too many great reasons it should be legalized, pitching the idea that it will increase funding for education is dumb.
I get annoyed with those over dramatic lottery commercials, as if the percentage they give to a faulty education system actually does something.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 2:42 pm to the808bass
quote:
I'm not a big fan of legalization.
What reasons make you not a fan?
How familiar are you with the way it all went down when it became illegal?
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:06 pm to the808bass
There many reason for marijuana legalization better than the tired old "think of the schools" bit.
And I fail to see how smoking pot is anymore of a "sin" than drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, gambling, etc.
And I fail to see how smoking pot is anymore of a "sin" than drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, gambling, etc.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:09 pm to the808bass
quote:
So the proponents of recreational pot shouldn't be falsely portraying it as some huge windfall. Do we need a connect the dots picture for you?
No one in this thread has tried to claim that pot will single-handedly float the education budget. You came in swinging at air, quoting the wrong numbers, and then moving the goal-posts when others pointed out the error. Everyone else was just impressed that the state invested no money and got a decent chunk of change. Many have suggested that black market marijuana will still be more prolific due to the avoidance of taxes, but this revenue shows people are willing to pay a little more for convenience. Any way you slice it, getting 19M in tax revenue for simply signing a piece of paper is a good deal for the state.
It's like you had a huge heated argument over this somewhere else and are now trying to vent over it here.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:11 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
What reasons make you not a fan?
1). I think the hidden social costs for marijuana usage are understated/ignored by every single pro-pot analysis. But more importantly...
2). The same argument used for pot will be used for more addictive drugs. The social costs to our "safety net" for these addicts will be high. Many people who say "I can do what I want with my body" are the first people in line for government funded assistance for their bodies. If it really would be about one's self-determination alone, I wouldn't have a huge problem with legalization of all drugs.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:13 pm to the808bass
quote:
The same argument used for pot will be used for more addictive drugs.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:19 pm to the808bass
quote:
The same argument used for pot will be used for more addictive drugs.
First, nicotine is more physiologically addictive than weed, opiates, alcohol, etc. Claiming the addictive nature of a substance should be the barometer for legalization fails miserably.
Second, most who want pot legalized are also for the legalization of other substances so this will ring hollow to them.
quote:
The social costs to our "safety net" for these addicts will be high.
As if they already aren't. If anything, legalization might make patients more up front with their doctors.
quote:
If it really would be about one's self-determination alone, I wouldn't have a huge problem with legalization of all drugs.
Your arguments about this, both here and in the past, make it tough to believe this.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:21 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
And I fail to see how smoking pot is anymore of a "sin" than drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, gambling, etc.
Sin tax has a distinct meaning which is not theological in nature (though it was in etymology).
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:22 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Claiming the addictive nature of a substance should be the barometer for legalization fails miserably.
If I claimed that, I'd certainly be in a pickle.
quote:
As if they already aren't. If anything, legalization might make patients more up front with their doctors.
What dollar savings would you expect from patients being "more honest with their doctors" about drug use? And patients are so honest about their usage of legal things like alcohol and cigarettes.
quote:
Your arguments about this, both here and in the past, make it tough to believe this.
I think you have me confused with someone else.
This post was edited on 6/3/14 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:26 pm to the808bass
Whether you claimed it or not, your implication was that addictiveness is relevant when discussing legalization. Otherwise, your claims of pot leading to the legalization of more addictive substances would be less than meaningless.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:28 pm to Roger Klarvin
Addiction potential is relevant for the costs of treatment. Which is exactly what I was referencing. It's like I was saying exactly what I meant.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:31 pm to the808bass
quote:
Addiction potential is relevant for the costs of treatment. Which is exactly what I was referencing. It's like I was saying exactly what I meant.
I'll bet that you have no problem with alcohol and prescription drugs being legal though.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:34 pm to the808bass
quote:
Addiction potential is relevant for the costs of treatment.
It's much easier to get people off opiates, weed and cocaine than nicotine. We spend BILLIONS getting people off tobacco products every year, more than every other substance combined.
It's completely irrelevant unless you also have an issue with all the slugs smoking cigarettes.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:34 pm to the808bass
There's no need to get snippy. It's possible to have a discussion without resorting to personal attacks.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:52 pm to the808bass
quote:
1). I think the hidden social costs for marijuana usage are understated/ignored by every single pro-pot analysis. But more importantly...
2). The same argument used for pot will be used for more addictive drugs. The social costs to our "safety net" for these addicts will be high. Many people who say "I can do what I want with my body" are the first people in line for government funded assistance for their bodies. If it really would be about one's self-determination alone, I wouldn't have a huge problem with legalization of all drugs.
This makes sense to you because it adds up in your head, everything checks out, but it's coming from a narrow and incomplete understanding of something (has nothing to do with you using or not using).
There is no way I can complete that understanding for you in a message board post, responding directly to what you said is tough because it narrows the spectrum for what can be said, in a way it legitimizing the points you brought up and narrows the course of debate.
You don't have to be pro legalization but you're smart enough to have a better argument against it, what you said doesn't even make sense if you think about it. The most important reason you want to keep it from being legal is because you think it will lead to other things to become legal? Preventative legalization, do I have that right?
Anyway.. you're probably not aware of the great amount of benefits it could have, your vision of what legalization would look like is incomplete so it's easy for the concerns you mentioned to seem relevant.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 3:56 pm to cas4t
The State of Texas needs to stop sending people to jail for possession of marijuana. Tax revenue would also be nice, but decriminalization needs to happen first.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 4:01 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
It's much easier to get people off opiates, weed and cocaine than nicotine.
Are you saying nicotine is more addictive than heroin? And by "off opiates" what do you mean, exactly?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News