August 23, 2016 at 11:11 am #22699VitalogyParticipant
Oregon medical marijuana dispensaries have sold an estimated $102 million in recreational cannabis since January, when the state imposed a 25 percent sales tax on pot.
$102 million in sales! Just think of all the black market pot dealers that have been put out of business.August 23, 2016 at 12:50 pm #22700
Wasn’t drug legalization supposed to bring about the end of the world?
I need to check, but I’m pretty sure that didn’t happen.August 23, 2016 at 10:13 pm #22704Chris_TaylorParticipant
I really hope the taxes made begin to address our public education system, giving home owners a little relief from being the tax base.
I’ve never used pot, and probably never will. However, the legalization was the right move and hopefully will be part of a our growing (that is a pun) Oregon economy.August 24, 2016 at 9:29 am #22706
Decriminalizing a wider variety of drugs would have wide spread societal benefits.
The additional tax revenue is just the most obvious. Once legalized (insert drug here) can become a regulated industry with all of the Federal health and safety oversight that implies. Arguably of even greater importance, legalization begins to dismantle the multi-billion dollar prison state we have in this country which is currently where housing, at staggering cost to the taxpayer, millions upon millions of non-violent offenders.
The current system is costly, illogical, counterproductive, and for those who claim to care about such things, immoral, unethical, and often deeply unjust. Those latter points alone *should* be of paramount concern to a number of groups.
Study after study, and increasing instances of real world application, have proven that none of the usual bogeyman and fear mongering hyperbole conjured by opponents of such moves ever comes about.
To Chris’s point, the vast (vast) majority of citizens who do not utilize drugs would not suddenly leap to do so once they’ve become legal. It’s simply a choice; and one that’s impacted by education. As has been brought up ad nausea over the years, and continues to fall haplessly upon the ears of the both the dim and the obstinate, both alcohol and tobacco are far more “dangerous” drugs than a wide array of other drugs which are currently illegal.
Logic alert: Anyone whose intent upon in engaging in any activity of any kind will find a way to do so regardless of its legality. The question therefore becomes, at what cost comes policing subjective morality? Literally and metaphorically.
I’d prefer something less costly and more intelligent, thanks.August 24, 2016 at 9:51 am #22707proud2baconservativeSpectator
“Logic alert: Anyone whose intent upon in engaging in any activity of any kind will find a way to do so regardless of its legality.”
The gun nuts ought to take this logic to heart.August 24, 2016 at 1:05 pm #22711Andy BrownParticipant
Ah, yes, the misguided war on drugs lost its way long ago because it really didn’t separate the war on drug users from the war on drug abusers from the war on drug smugglers/dealers.
Let’s not forget that like like alcohol, marijuana was legal before it was illegal before it became legal again.
Don’t forget tobacco, always legal and hardly regulated, is the biggest killer of the deadly alcohol/tobacco pair. Marijuana still remains in the ‘heroin’ class of drugs on the Federal substance list.
How many states legalizing recreational marijuana is it going to take to move the Federal government to do the right thing and reclassify it?
Better yet, the Feds could legalize it and put a small tax on it. The current levy on wine is $1.07 per gallon, or about 8 cents per ounce of alcohol (assuming an average alcohol content of 11 percent). Last raised in 1991, current excise tax rates on alcohol are far lower than historical levels when adjusted for inflation. Complete alcohol/tobacco tax list:
Why does this not happen?
Well for years, the paper industry fought any kind of legalization because back when marijuana became illegal, it was their primary source of pulp for paper products. So for eighty some odd years they have developed their tree farms for paper and don’t want to have to compete with all the waste growing medical and recreational pot plants generates. In fact, the clothing industry and rope and many other products will now have a new resource in some states.
Of course, change takes time.August 24, 2016 at 3:49 pm #22713
Pope Bacon: As you are a troll, I have no doubt you’re already aware of the following. However, in the spirt of being thorough:
• Your blurt is an overly simplistic non-comparative on almost too many levels to bother detailing. Not the least of which is that no-one is attempting to keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, nor is anyone calling for the seizure of weapons currently held by you or anyone else, nor is anyone suggesting in any way at any level that status should ever change. Claims to the contrary are, what’s the word I’m looking for? Ah yes, A lie.
• You, predictably, have nothing at all to contribute to the topic at hand. I hereby evidence very so slight surprise you didn’t attempt to work abortion into the thread.
• These are but two of many reasons you are widely despised for the lying, hypocritical, trolling, hack that you are.
P.S. Trump is still badly losing and on track for a colossal shellacking. Enjoy.August 24, 2016 at 6:36 pm #22716AmusParticipant
I think it’s a mistake to call the “War on Drugs” misguided.
It was in fact guided by Richard Nixon for a very specific purpose;August 24, 2016 at 10:59 pm #22718Chris_TaylorParticipant
.August 29, 2016 at 2:55 pm #22766proud2baconservativeSpectator
Your blurt is an overly simplistic non-comparative on almost too many levels to bother detailing. Not the least of which is that no-one is attempting to keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, nor is anyone calling for the seizure of weapons currently held by you or anyone else, nor is anyone suggesting in any way at any level that status should ever change.
Not true. You want “assault” rifles to be banned. Those of us who believe they are effective weapons for home defense do not. Why do you want them to be banned? Because they can kill a lot of people and if you make them illegal, the reasoning is that it will be harder for bad people and mentally ill people to get their hands on these weapons and less innocent people will be killed. Is that right?
But the logic that many of the NRA crowd would use in defense of owning these weapons, besides citing the Second Amendment is the following:
“Anyone who is intent upon in engaging in any activity of any kind will find a way to do so regardless of its legality.”
That’s your logic as well, used in defense of legalizing what many would consider to be dangerous drugs.
Is there some reason that logic doesn’t work when applied to gun ownership?
Hard drugs are dangerous. They kill people and destroy families. We should do whatever we can to make them more difficult to obtain. We should not de-stigmatize their use by making them legal.
It’s true that many will do things that are illegal regardless of the law, but enforced laws act as a disincentive.
You, predictably, have nothing at all to contribute to the topic at hand. I hereby evidence very so slight surprise you didn’t attempt to work abortion into the thread.
I said a lot in that one sentence, but it went over your head. Maybe you get the point now. And since you brought up “abortion,” laws would also work to suppress a procedure that can hardly be classified as “rare” or even “safe” (if there is any concern about the human organisms complete with their own unique DNA, beating hearts, and brain waves which are destroyed at the rate of 3,000 per day).
P.S. Trump is still badly losing and on track for a colossal shellacking. Enjoy.
The election is more than two months away. It ought to concern Democrats that their superstar is averaging just 4 or 5 points better than a political neophyte. There’s a lot of time for this to turn around. Reagan was polling at 39% in early September and finished with 51% of the popular vote.August 29, 2016 at 4:37 pm #22769Andy BrownParticipant
A total of seven states and a few cities now have laws banning assault style weapons laws on the books, and so far none of those has been struck down. Eventually one of the cases will land at the SCOTUS, which going forward will be liberal and progressive after Clinton demolishes drumpf in November.
Your anecdotal reference to Reagan does not apply. Why not you ask. It’s easy. So easy you sort of answered it yourself. Ronnie was a seasoned politician. drumpf is not only not a politician (as you said) but does not have anywhere near the support level within his own party that Reagan did. In fact, drumpf is losing Republican support every week. Also, do yourself a favor and forgo the popular vote polls which show Hillary ahead by 6 points (real clear average http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.htm ) and focus on the electoral situation which now shows Hillary with enough electoral votes to win without winning a single toss up state. drumpf would have to not just run the table in the swing states, he’d have to take some solid blue states which is just not going to happen. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
On the drugs issue, they are not comparable. The people that get hurt with drugs are self abusing. With assault weapons the victims are others. The fact that you are too fucking stupid to see that and weigh that in your analysis only underscores how limited your writing skills are and further plunges your perceived ability to comprehend complex issues further downward towards idiocy.
So the bottom line is your post is highly in error, lacking good judgement and certainly lacking any sign of humility. Your ego is out of control altogether. You do indeed contribute nothing of value around here and every time you expose your stupidity someone here will point it out to you. No one is ‘missing’ your points and nothing you say or even think is going over anyone’s head (except maybe dork).August 31, 2016 at 6:44 pm #22789VitalogyParticipant
“Hard drugs are dangerous. They kill people and destroy families. We should do whatever we can to make them more difficult to obtain. We should not de-stigmatize their use by making them legal.”
Tobacco and alcohol kill more people and destroy more families than all other “hard” drugs combined. Should they also be illegal?August 31, 2016 at 9:45 pm #22792BroadwayParticipant
>>Tobacco and alcohol kill more people and destroy more families than all other “hard” drugs combined
I rest my case.September 1, 2016 at 1:03 am #22794skepticalParticipant
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.