ATTN: Ratatosk, and assorted others

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think BadBeast nailed it on the head.

Legalizing marijuana for example would take terrorist, drug cartels and the [insert ethnicity here] mafia out of the picture.  Hell, the job of production and distribution can be taken up by tobacco companies instead. This also provides a new crop for agricultural purchases, giving farmers more to work with if they wanted. International tariffs and duties can be imposed for imports if it is legalized elsewhere. And if it isn't, TOURISM. This would also take a major commodity out of the hands of drug dealers. On top of that, it takes away the gateway drug effect. If weed is illegal and you smoke it for the first time and don't become an insane murder-rapist, then you might assume the authorities are also lying about angel dust. If you take weed, a rather benign sort of drug, which is less addictive than and has less of a negative impact than alcohol, out of the picture of illegal drugs, then you can continue to villify the other drugs that do really fuck up your life.

I'm sure that this has all been said numerous times before.

[LMNO]

Yes, yes it has.  About as much as libertarianism and only slightly more than whether Zappa sucks or not.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

http://www.examiner.com/x-36226-Chicago-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m6d23-McDonalds-responds-to-threatened-lawsuit-over-Happy-Meal-toys

Hell, if Happy Meal toys are too dangerous for our kids, then I suppose we should make everything else illegal as well.

Time on the computer = time not exercising. INTERNETS IS NAW ILLEGAL!! We can put you in a community service program though... Television too obviously, cause people sit their fat ass on the couch and eat potato chips... OHSHI we better make those snacks illegal too! And fuck Maple Syrup right in the EAR and those damned Waffles/Pancakes/French Toast!

Come on my fellow Free Citizens! Rise up and save your fellow Americans from themselves! Tell them what they can and can't do, can and can't eat, drink, smoke, fap to and whatever else might possibly not be 100% healthy for them. IT IS OUR RIGHT AND DUTY, HELP THEM BE FREE!!!

[AFK]

Okay now you're just being absurd - teenagers believe what the government tells them?

If it helps them in their aim to rebel against their parents?  You betcha!  If the government decides to legalize marijuana, you can be damn sure they are taking that to the bank anytime their Mom or Dad tries to tell them it's bad for them. 

I'm getting the impression you weren't a very rebellious teenager. If I'm wrong in this assumption then I'm sorry - it's my impression is all - no insult intended.

Depends on how you define rebellious.  Did I drink and do drugs?  No.  My rebellion against my parents was pretty focused on losing my religion. 

I'm not arguing that kids will blindly believe anything government says.  What I'm saying is that kids will glom on to the government legalizing marijuana as a way to legitimize their use with their parents.  It's not out of a blind allegiance to government, it's because the action is convenient to their aims. 

[AFK]

http://www.examiner.com/x-36226-Chicago-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m6d23-McDonalds-responds-to-threatened-lawsuit-over-Happy-Meal-toys

Hell, if Happy Meal toys are too dangerous for our kids, then I suppose we should make everything else illegal as well.

Time on the computer = time not exercising. INTERNETS IS NAW ILLEGAL!! We can put you in a community service program though... Television too obviously, cause people sit their fat ass on the couch and eat potato chips... OHSHI we better make those snacks illegal too! And fuck Maple Syrup right in the EAR and those damned Waffles/Pancakes/French Toast!

Come on my fellow Free Citizens! Rise up and save your fellow Americans from themselves! Tell them what they can and can't do, can and can't eat, drink, smoke, fap to and whatever else might possibly not be 100% healthy for them. IT IS OUR RIGHT AND DUTY, HELP THEM BE FREE!!!

But see, the floodgate theory is really not reality.  Reality is that these things happen apart from each other and each event can be evaluated by the American people on a case by case basis.  Banning toys in Happy Meals doesn't automatically mean we are going to do all the things you suggest.  America has always worked in an incremental fashion.  When it goes too far, the people will put their foot down. 

[AFK]

Decriminalisation doesn't go far enough. It leaves distribution, and any import/export in the hands of Criminals. Not that I have anything particularly against Criminals,  (and to be fair, they have been quite efficient at it) but for the whole of society (UK,  Specifically)  to benefit from a major move like this, it needs to be Regulated, Quality assessed, and Taxed.

I'm certain that once people actually realize the massive
(and I really do mean massive) amounts of revenue and jobs that this would generate for our badly abused economy, then the public would be wholeheartedly behind such a move. Not only would it ease the burden of Taxes on the average non-smoking working man, but it would also redirect a similar sum that is currently (by necessity) either in the Black Economy, or going straight out of the Country, funding fuck knows what,  fuck knows where, back into the Economy proper.

So how can a responsible Government, who are purportedly  in control of the Economy, and supposedly taking measures to improve it's general health, allow such a lucrative Black Economy to go straight into the hands of Criminal Ganglords, without even having the Tax from it?
All of this could be up and running in less than a year. If Legalisation were to take place, then the only extra outlay for the Government, would be to employ a few extra Taxbods to count the mountains of cash that would be rolling in.

There are already efficient and well established lines of distribution and import set up. And many of the people who are currently involved in these lines, (and earning good money at it too) would jump at the chance to 'Go Legal', So the knock on effect would be much more lucrative for the general populace, than the "Trickle down" effect of giving the Banks handouts. It begins at the other end of the Economy for a start, so the real effects of the influx of money would be felt straight away, generating a confident rise in public spending. It would eventually 'Trickle up' to the Banks, but only after it had generated Small Businesses, Tax, and Jobs for people. Which is really the mandate of the  Banks & the Treasury , but they have proven to be too incompetant and greedy, and working so closely with each other, there is  too much room for abuse and collusion. So if we put the whole of this new industry between the Government and the Banks, the revenues generated can be directed into  something other than huge salary increases for 'The Boys on the Boards'.

As has already been said, the numbers of kids getting stoned would not be adversarily affected, as they are already smoking it, regardless of the Law. If anything, it would decrease thier numbers, as their suppliers would be driven out of business, or regulated. In fact, the whole thing need not affect the smoker at all, except in the pocket.

To summarise, I think we all must be missing some important factor, because Legalising Puff is such a win/win option, I find it unthinkable that the Government haven't already done so, decades ago. Therefore there must be some pretty heavy duty lobbying from Drug Companies, or Textile manafcturers, or The Church, or some other major player, that stands to lose a lot of money. And the only people that spring to mind, are the International Criminal Organisations who use the illegal status of drugs, and the subsequent industries of illegal import/export,  as their source of income. (Presumably along with this, comes some top level bribery, that we can do without)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Okay now you're just being absurd - teenagers believe what the government tells them?

If it helps them in their aim to rebel against their parents?  You betcha!  If the government decides to legalize marijuana, you can be damn sure they are taking that to the bank anytime their Mom or Dad tries to tell them it's bad for them. 

Well, Mom and Dad should stop being liars and tell them that its not necessarily bad for them, but it does seem to have some bad side effects for kids their age and maybe they should wait until they're older.

I'm getting the impression you weren't a very rebellious teenager. If I'm wrong in this assumption then I'm sorry - it's my impression is all - no insult intended.

Depends on how you define rebellious.  Did I drink and do drugs?  No.  My rebellion against my parents was pretty focused on losing my religion. 

I'm not arguing that kids will blindly believe anything government says.  What I'm saying is that kids will glom on to the government legalizing marijuana as a way to legitimize their use with their parents.  It's not out of a blind allegiance to government, it's because the action is convenient to their aims. 

Lame Parents are lame.

http://www.examiner.com/x-36226-Chicago-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m6d23-McDonalds-responds-to-threatened-lawsuit-over-Happy-Meal-toys

Hell, if Happy Meal toys are too dangerous for our kids, then I suppose we should make everything else illegal as well.

Time on the computer = time not exercising. INTERNETS IS NAW ILLEGAL!! We can put you in a community service program though... Television too obviously, cause people sit their fat ass on the couch and eat potato chips... OHSHI we better make those snacks illegal too! And fuck Maple Syrup right in the EAR and those damned Waffles/Pancakes/French Toast!

Come on my fellow Free Citizens! Rise up and save your fellow Americans from themselves! Tell them what they can and can't do, can and can't eat, drink, smoke, fap to and whatever else might possibly not be 100% healthy for them. IT IS OUR RIGHT AND DUTY, HELP THEM BE FREE!!!

But see, the floodgate theory is really not reality.  Reality is that these things happen apart from each other and each event can be evaluated by the American people on a case by case basis.  Banning toys in Happy Meals doesn't automatically mean we are going to do all the things you suggest. 

Well, of course, I was being absurd

America has always worked in an incremental fashion.  When it goes too far, the people will put their foot down. 

*looks around*

Really? Are you talking about America in the 21st century? Cause I'm not sure I've seen much evidence to support such an optimistic theory...

[BadBeast]

I've never really been sure what that 'citation needed' smiley meant.

[Captain Utopia]

It's from Wikipedia -- it means back up your assertions with valid references, or STFU.  It's a lot easier than providing your own sources which disprove the uncited assertions, and it has the added benefit of pissing people off who up until that point, were under the misconception that they were participating in a conversation.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

It's from Wikipedia -- it means back up your assertions with valid references, or STFU.  It's a lot easier than providing your own sources which disprove the uncited assertions, and it has the added benefit of pissing people off who up until that point, were under the misconception that they were participating in a conversation.

[Captain Utopia]

 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I couldn't decide between that and the

[Telarus]

I'd be happy with Medical recognition/legalization and equal exemption for religious use. That way, you'd have an adult population (arguably trained in the effects) to provide information and control access.

Because, seriously, allowing the Native American Church to use peyote, and allowing the south american/christian syncretic religions to use Hoasca(DMT), but throwing Rastafarians in jail for their sacrament screams of entrenched unconstitutional power-mongering.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It's from Wikipedia -- it means back up your assertions with valid references, or STFU.  It's a lot easier than providing your own sources which disprove the uncited assertions, and it has the added benefit of pissing people off who up until that point, were under the misconception that they were participating in a conversation.

[AFK]

Here's the thing.  I've heard this argument that legalizing drugs will somehow be an adrenaline shot to the economy.  That it is going to be this big, boost.  And I've never seen any reasonable, legitimate proof to bolster that position.  So I'm asking BadBeast to simply provide the facts that supports his theory.  Because I honestly don't see it from my understanding of economics and drugs.  Yes, certainly, there would be additional revenues coming into the state coiffers if you legalized marijuana.  But one thing that will happen is a good percentage of that will go to treatment and prevention funding.  That will undoubtedly be one of the compromises made to legalize the drug (if it ever happens).  The other revenues would also likely be marked for specific funds, most likely in the area of health care.  Maybe some of it goes into the general fund.  But, by that point, what you have left wouldn't actually be so significant that it would provide that much of a punch to an ailing economy.  UNLESS, you market the drug to get more people to buy it and use it.  And then, you have a whole new can of worms. 

Oh, and FP, you're doing a great job Monday QBing this thread.  Anytime you want to actually add to the debate, go right ahead.