81–90 of 142 posts
I'm not someone who would take advantage of the legalization of marijuana, but I am in favor of legalization because I don't think it's the government's job to tell you what you can or can't do. If drinking is legal, smoking weed should be too. I understand the concept behind a tax on marijuana, but I don't understand a 25% tax on every stage of the process... If you're saying that it's legal to use marijuana respons…
This'll take a lot of pressure off of people in Redmond...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main issue here is that our medical care system is totally screwed. At the end of the day, if no one else can, the state has to pay for emergency care. I voted for the marijuana bill, but the contra argument is pretty persuasive at least from a money standpoint. Marijuana use will probably at least double as a result of this bill. Unfortunately, this has a real cost to society. There's not a lot of quality data o…
Obviously more people will try it if it is legal, but it's pretty ubiquitous now and most adults have already had the chance to sample and decide. As for the "cost to society", I have to imagine that any damage from use (and there's not much evidence for it) would be countered by the decrease in real damage done by the War on Drugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If people don't care either way, they should be swayed by the massive cost savings by significantly reducing the scope of the war on drugs and the associated legal and penitentiary costs. I'm not opposed to taxing it like alcohol or perhaps cigarettes (especially as a non-user) but 25% seems a bit crazy. Of course it may still end up cheaper to buyers. But if that's the cost of progress, fine. Two steps forward and o…
The main issue here is that our medical care system is totally screwed. At the end of the day, if no one else can, the state has to pay for emergency care. I voted for the marijuana bill, but the contra argument is pretty persuasive at least from a money standpoint. Marijuana use will probably at least double as a result of this bill. Unfortunately, this has a real cost to society. There's not a lot of quality data o…
That's just wrong.
Alcohol kills tens of thousands of people through liver failure and various other adverse affects. Pot does not. Alcohol is pretty far up the addiction scale. Pot is not (though it does have some addiction potential). Alcohol withdrawal can actually kill you, which is worse than pretty much anything else I know. Pot withdrawal may disturb your sleep for a week, if you're a heavy user.
Tobacco kills an enormous amount of folks. Pot smoke is not nearly as toxic (AFAICT) and you don't have to smoke it anyway.
There is a lot of data on this, a quick search on your favourite engine will find it for you, it's not like pot was just discovered last week.
Recreational use is VERY different to medical use. No need to fly to amsterdam anymore just go skiing in colorado.
The question i have for you is this how do you feel about work place testing?
If someone isnt coming baked to work but tested within 7-14 days positive how would you feel abotu them losing their job?
What if you are a medical marijuana user?
This already came up in a court case in Michigan - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/joseph-casias-fired...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Y'all also fell for another initiative from Tim Eyman.
Why is a roadblock to higher taxes bad? As long as the current tax % is sufficient, I don't see why that % shouldn't be sustained indefinitely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with taxing something you don't like is the government quickly becomes dependent on the revenue and ends up having a perverse incentive to promote it. My guess is the medical prescription nature of marijuana in California probably inflates its price 10x.
We just deregulated alcohol last year -- meaning the WA liquor control board stores shut down and we can purchase from grocery stores, with a $2.85 tax per 750ml, on top of the 10% sales tax. The justification is that this will funnel more money into the state's general fund. And the nickname "weed" is apparently appropriate -- growers tell me it's a hearty crop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government is a protection racket. Laws against weed violate the sovereignty of hte individual. It's absurd that the primary argument is tax revenue. Really shows how whacked politics and American's conception of government is.
I'm interested to know why you're being downvoted.