Democrats want to Legalize Marijuana

[BigRed]

Indiana Democrats want to legalize medical and recreational marijuana. They say it will generate a lot of tax revenue.
Obviously, the next step is to legalize prostitution. It will also generate tax revenue and attract conventions (except the FFA) to the state. Additionally, it will provide employment for unskilled young people who don't want to bother with schooling.


Add purple if you think necessary.

I do not follow this thread much, but wanted to ask.


Is it "legalize" or is it "decriminalize"?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It means that I am wondering if you are a shill account for another foaming at the mouth legalizer who self-combusted

I save logical responses for those who pose logical speculation. 'I want weed legalized because I want to get loaded' doesn't rise to that standard. I notice you didn't/couldn't refute the information in the citation so attacked me for posting it as well as questioning my motivation - as if that affected the veracity of the story

"I want weed legalized because I want to get loaded" is logical. They wish to imbibe and get intoxicated, but they do not wish to break the law. Therefore they wish it to be legalized. Perfectly logical. Same as "I enjoy my alcohol/tobacco/etc and don't wish it to be criminalized". I'll admit if it was legal on a state and federal level, I'd probably imbibe on occasion. Same as I do alcohol. And yes I'd like to see it legalized for that reason. I'd also like to see it legalized for valid medical reasons. I'd also like to see it legalized for other reasons, such as freedom. If I want to smoke a joint, drink a shot of bleach, or snort crystal draino it's my body and I should be able to treat it as I see fit.

Should everything else that a person wishes to imbibe to get intoxicated be criminalized? Or how should it be controlled? How about if it is also used as a valid medical treatment?

I won't try to refute the info in that article. I'll actually agree with it. It states the problem is over taxation and over regulation. There is a tax on cultivation, an exise tax, sales tax, licenses. The excise tax alone is 15% with an 80% markup for arms length sales. You mentioned you occasionally like a glass of scotch, let's say that scotch is $50 per 1/5th. If it was marijuana in CA the excise tax would be about $13.50, for the scotch it's less than $2.25. Taxes on MJ in parts of CA are up to 50% of the total. Street price is half of store retail. If you could get your favorite scotch delivered to your door for half price would you do it?

Some of the many ... err ... partial, suspect 'truths' that are being used to sell this idea - many in this very thread - are all about how tax revenue will benefit government (state and federal, I guess) and how it will end smuggling and break the power of the cartels

California is probably the biggest and loosest market of all those states that have legalized, and it is apparent not a single one of those claimed 'benefits' of legalization is going to happen

It is quite amusing to see the same forum claiming vast tax benefits from legalizing then shift to claiming it is being taxed too much, all the while enabling the cartels to shorten their supply chain - and yes, I read the article one day on Real Clear and bookmarked it for later use in this thread

That is why I liken legalization to the lottery, lots of ... overly optimistic 'promises', shall we say ... used as a sales pitch and then almost nothing gets delivered

Biggest maybe, I'll need cites before I consider loosest.

Yes there can be tax benefits, as long as the taxes aren't too onerous. See alcohol, how many people do you know that go hit the corner moonshiner compared to the corner liquor store? Same for tobacco. Compare those with the taxes on MJ in CA. Possibly the closest would be tobacco, which for cigarettes is a bit onerous, but still far from as bad.

How are the cartels shortening their supply chain?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I do not follow this thread much, but wanted to ask.


Is it "legalize" or is it "decriminalize"?

I believe there have been bills introduced and proposed to do both. Legalize or decriminalize, or legalize medical and either remain criminal for recreation or decriminalize for it.

 

[Flash-hider]

I don't know why they are getting so upset in California. After all, they trusted their good communist leaders in Sacramento would be watching out for them and would treat them fairly.

 

[jamil]

So what is the difference between moonshine and whiskey?

I’m no expert in alcohol making/consumption, I think the difference is moonshine is whiskey that’s not been taxed/regulated. I’m not against home distillers making their own. I think if you sell it in a mass way it should be regulated, but not any more than any other consumables. If I had my druthers the only tax would just be the normal sales tax. Same for mj. Minimal regulation, and tax, and only as a consumable product. But of course I’d want to keep intoxication laws. No driving under the influence, etcetera.

 

[jamil]

I do not follow this thread much, but wanted to ask.


Is it "legalize" or is it "decriminalize"?

Seems like that’s a distinction without a difference.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Seems like that’s a distinction without a difference.

Not really. Decriminalization usually refers to making possession a simple misdemeanor as opposed to a felony. Legalization means no penalty whatsoever.

 

[Leadeye]

Historically the government has always been involved in intoxicating substances that were commonly consumed, solely for the purpose of generating revenue from them. Right after this country got started the Whiskey Rebellion began when the government taxed domestic whiskey manufacturers, just for the money, no morality written in those laws. Some things never change.

Always follow the money

 

[jamil]

As onerous as the tax/regulation is in CA, it’s almost as if they wanted it to fail.

Oh hell. Who are we trying to kid here. CA has no clue about the consequences of their policies. “Why is everyone moving out of our utopia? I don’t understand it.”

 

[BugI02]

"I want weed legalized because I want to get loaded" is logical. They wish to imbibe and get intoxicated, but they do not wish to break the law. Therefore they wish it to be legalized. Perfectly logical. Same as "I enjoy my alcohol/tobacco/etc and don't wish it to be criminalized". I'll admit if it was legal on a state and federal level, I'd probably imbibe on occasion. Same as I do alcohol. And yes I'd like to see it legalized for that reason. I'd also like to see it legalized for valid medical reasons. I'd also like to see it legalized for other reasons, such as freedom. If I want to smoke a joint, drink a shot of bleach, or snort crystal draino it's my body and I should be able to treat it as I see fit.

Should everything else that a person wishes to imbibe to get intoxicated be criminalized? Or how should it be controlled? How about if it is also used as a valid medical treatment?

I won't try to refute the info in that article. I'll actually agree with it. It states the problem is over taxation and over regulation. There is a tax on cultivation, an exise tax, sales tax, licenses. The excise tax alone is 15% with an 80% markup for arms length sales. You mentioned you occasionally like a glass of scotch, let's say that scotch is $50 per 1/5th. If it was marijuana in CA the excise tax would be about $13.50, for the scotch it's less than $2.25. Taxes on MJ in parts of CA are up to 50% of the total. Street price is half of store retail. If you could get your favorite scotch delivered to your door for half price would you do it?

This whole argument is reminiscent of the 'communism fails because no one has done it right yet' canard

People in this thread are arguing that one of the benefits of legalization will be beaucoup tax revenue. California legalized it and taxed it at a rate that I guess they feel offers them sufficient return on their expenses/investment. That is everything you are wishing for, only now it isn't being done right [sound of goalposts moving] and that is why it isn't working out as promised

No one ever seems to consider that all the promises of the wonders of legalization were overblown as a strategy to enlist support - just another cynical manipulation by government to line connected pockets and leave the average Joe to deal with the fallout of living in Udopia

Much like gun restrictions don't deter criminals who don't obey the law anyway, cartels don't have to pay taxes or own the land they cultivate or care about anti-pollution restrictions or not kill innocent people who stumble upon their grow operations etc. They have no intention of obeying the law and only low level players are taking the risks. They will ALWAYS be able to undercut the states prices

IMO ALL of the selling points being preferred for legalization are pie in the sky. I present people with what figures I can dig up on such things as potential savings on incarceration (another vastly overpromised area) and they criticize the figures without offering anything concrete in refutation (with the notable exception of BBI)

 

[jamil]

Communism? Really?

 

[BugI02]

I’m no expert in alcohol making/consumption, I think the difference is moonshine is whiskey that’s not been taxed/regulated. I’m not against home distillers making their own. I think if you sell it in a mass way it should be regulated, but not any more than any other consumables. If I had my druthers the only tax would just be the normal sales tax. Same for mj. Minimal regulation, and tax, and only as a consumable product. But of course I’d want to keep intoxication laws. No driving under the influence, etcetera.

I think for that to be reasonable, commercial distillers would still need to pay for the expense of certification and inspection. As a home distiller, if you poison yoiurself it only affects you. As a commercial producer you can do a lot more damage and the state has a legitimate interest in preventing such occurrences. Likely that need for inspection is some of the taxation on growers in Cali

 

[KLB]

I think for that to be reasonable, commercial distillers would still need to pay for the expense of certification and inspection. As a home distiller, if you poison yoiurself it only affects you. As a commercial producer you can do a lot more damage and the state has a legitimate interest in preventing such occurrences. Likely that need for inspection is some of the taxation on growers in Cali

Greed is the reason for that taxation in CA.

 

[ArevaloSocom]

Good. I hope it does become legal.

 

[BugI02]

As onerous as the tax/regulation is in CA, it’s almost as if they wanted it to fail.

Oh hell. Who are we trying to kid here. CA has no clue about the consequences of their policies. “Why is everyone moving out of our utopia? I don’t understand it.”

Based on information from relatives in California, the quality and potency of the weed is much better and the price is still lower than it was for near same quality pre-legalization

It seems that some people want sinsemilla at ditchweed prices

Even at that, my relative takes advantage of the carve out for grow your own, has a sophisticated automated hydroponic system using LED grow-lighting and meets all of his own needs because he wants to know everything going into the plants is as organic and non-toxic as possible

He says personal growers can't buy seeds, though. State allows but does not encourage grow your own in that way. He buys his seeds from the EU

 

[BugI02]

Communism? Really?

It's the 'you're not doing it right' alibiing that seems parallel

Communism keeps failing not because it is an unworkable system but because it just isn't ever implemented correctly

Now, legalization is beginning to fail in many of its promised benefits and it isn't a systemic problem, it's because the states aren't doing it right

You can't see the similarity?

 

[phylodog]

Much like gun restrictions don't deter criminals who don't obey the law anyway, cartels don't have to pay taxes or own the land they cultivate or care about anti-pollution restrictions or not kill innocent people who stumble upon their grow operations etc. They have no intention of obeying the law and only low level players are taking the risks. They will ALWAYS be able to undercut the states prices

Which is why the states shouldn't have prices. If the state didn't demand a cut there would be no use whatsoever for cartels in the cannabis business. No one would get murdered for stumbling into anyone's grow operation for the same reason no one gets murdered for stumbling in to someone's vegetable garden. Will everyone grow their own? Not by a long shot but not everyone grows their own tomatoes either.

 

[phylodog]

Even at that, my relative takes advantage of the carve out for grow your own, has a sophisticated automated hydroponic system using LED grow-lighting and meets all of his own needs because he wants to know everything going into the plants is as organic and non-toxic as possible

Sounds like a lot of work. Much more than people who partake of cannabis are willing to put in according to the government generated stigma. Does this relative lead an otherwise acceptable lifestyle? I'm not here, I'm hoping I might get you to see from a different perspective.

 

[Leadeye]

Good distillation practices like dispensing with lower BP, early materials, commonly called foreshot, can keep methanol toxicity from being a problem.

 

[BugI02]

Which is why the states shouldn't have prices. If the state didn't demand a cut there would be no use whatsoever for cartels in the cannabis business. No one would get murdered for stumbling into anyone's grow operation for the same reason no one gets murdered for stumbling in to someone's vegetable garden. Will everyone grow their own? Not by a long shot but not everyone grows their own tomatoes either.

Do you think the state could or would let you grow weed for commercial sale without at least some quality control? Who would foot the bill for that? Shouldn't it be the consumer, the beneficiary of legalization and said quality control

And the point is, many are using that tax revenue pie in the sky as a selling point for legalization - then it turns out they actually don't want to pay the taxes