Isn't it about time to legalize the weed?

[Detroitdad]

Maybe they are not high enough. But in the cost benefit analysis one needs to consider if a partial offset of revenues incurred is worth the costs of a total prohibition.

I read that alcohol taxes cover about 1/6 of the costs of alcohol to society.
http://www.cspinet.org/booze/taxguide/taxes.html
But you have to ask yourself, what would be the costs of enforcement, incarceration, interdiction, and crime associated with bootlegging and alcohol consumption, if it were prohibited. The costs were huge in our earler attempt. And they indirectly helped get Jack Kennedy elected.

Surely marijuana taxes could constructed to more thoroughly cover the costs. And don't you think that the costs would be lower than those associated with alcohol? I sure do. I see weed as bad substance, and I see alcohol as a terrible substance.

[RockyBalboa]

Obviously not.

The net negative effects of marijuana by far out weigh any personal positive effects that can occur.

Of course either side of the debate can find any cockamamie scientific study they want to conveniently back up their claim.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Could a tax on weed not offset some of cost of the negative health effects? In effect are we already getting those supposed negative health effects, no tax into the coffers to cover those extra health related costs, the costs of enforcement, the costs of interdiction, the cost of associated crime all so that we don't expand that list for a relatively benign drug?

To me it does not make economic sense, and that is not even to consider the collateral effects and possible infringements on personal liberty.

I sincerely agree with your ideas about doing what is doable. That is why I think you give up when you're just pushing a policy based on tradition.

Are you Canadian? Cause that's a wonderfully Canadian point of view you're throwing out the there -eh comrad!

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If it were doable, which it's not, I'd be all for banning junk food, tobacco and alcohol, but I'm a realist. Expanding societally acceptable substances should not be a social policy. It makes bad public health policy and it's a bad idea.

You can have my Doritos after you pry them from my dead, cold hands.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Maybe they are not high enough. But in the cost benefit analysis one needs to consider if a partial offset of revenues incurred is worth the costs of a total prohibition.

I read that alcohol taxes cover about 1/6 of the costs of alcohol to society.
http://www.cspinet.org/booze/taxguide/taxes.html
But you have to ask yourself, what would be the costs of enforcement, incarceration, interdiction, and crime associated with bootlegging and alcohol consumption, if it were prohibited. The costs were huge in our earler attempt. And they indirectly helped get Jack Kennedy elected.

Surely marijuana taxes could constructed to more thoroughly cover the costs. And don't you think that the costs would be lower than those associated with alcohol? I sure do. I see weed as bad substance, and I see alcohol as a terrible substance.

Marijuana costs are lower due to lower consumption.

What are the heavy prosecution costs? This is probably urban legend that marijuana prosecution costs are high. I'm not aware of any special units designed specifically to go after weed. In fact, it seems the country prosecutes it very lightly.

No, I cannot divine a reason why sane, law-abiding citizens would want it to be legalized.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Perhaps we should criminalize McDonalds and Burger King.

I haven't been to either in years.

And while I'm not gung ho to legalize the chronic (I am open to medical arguments), I do note that it was legal for many, many years. Setting aside its illegality, it bothers me less than tobacco.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I haven't been to either in years.

And while I'm not gung ho to legalize the chronic (I am open to medical arguments), I do note that it was legal for many, many years. Setting aside its illegality, it bothers me less than tobacco.

IIRC, and I could be in error, but LSD was initially legal before its harmful attributes were understood. An initial period of legality isn't a very strong rational argument. It has similar harmful effects upon the lungs as tobacco.

The medical arguments are tangential and are not mainstream. Nausea for cancer patients. That's the strongest argument I've heard. Most physicians I know roll their eyes when it becomes discussed especially those involved in pain medication management.