Comments on: The economic case for legal marijuana Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: snoee Sat, 12 Feb 2011 19:33:11 +0000 To those using the arguments against legalization of: “Marijuana legalization will not generate much tax revenue. People will grow their own and pay not tax” or “there will be a huge underground market”..
Please ask yourself and consider:
How many cigarette smokers or alcohol drinkers do you know? How many of those are also tobacco growers or alcohol distillers? Additionally, of those tobacco/alcohol users, how many are truly reaping large personal gain from buying underground tobacco and alcohol?
Yet, it is a fact that tax revenue from Tobacco & Alcohol sales in the US is well into the billions not to mention the related GDP implications.

By: wiffles Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:17:45 +0000 There are a number of points to consider. First anyone who has never smoked, has very little understanding and should be ignored.If you have driven a car stoned it is not smart but you are unlikly to go over 30 mph.As for health it is not good for you if you smoke regularly.The effect on the budget will be possotive even if they collect no tax revenue, because the cost of lawyers, cops, prisons etc will be drasticly reduced.Finaly the moral issue,if you dont want me to tell you how to run your life, dont tell me how I should run mine.

By: doctorK Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:19:09 +0000 Cannabis is less physically addictive than caffeine, while the so-called “gateway drug” theory is a complete fantasy, and it was just recently called “half-baked” as a result of a scientific study. CNN reported that Cocaine use has dropped sharply, by 30% since 2002, which is really good news. I worked in addiction medicine for years, and this is what I can advice on the matter: Any suppression of Cannabis use will be immediately followed by an increase in alcohol/hard drug/prescription drug abuse! You don’t believe me? Then maybe you will believe the Big Alcohol lobby that is financing the Cannabis Legalization opponents for exactly this reason. Right now Cannabis is just simply perceived as a much safer alternative to alcohol/hard drugs, which is precisely how it should be perceived. To have a society in which there is NO psychoactive substance use is an illusion, and it will be good for our government to realize this. So then, it becomes a matter of “safer choices”, just like with the sex education. And Cannabis is, without a shadow of a doubt, a much safer choice than alcohol or hard drugs! Just very recently a research study in addiction medicine has determined that Cannabis may actually serve as an “exit” substance for recovering alcoholics/hard drug addicts! And there is another extremely important property of Cannabis that the prohibitionists would love to keep secret: Cannabis use suppresses violent urges and behaviors and, as one prestigious textbook says, “Only the unsophisticated think otherwise” Then, of course, there is a potential of Cannabis in chronic pain, where other drugs may be ineffective (or physically addictive), with very important potential consequences for our wounded veterans, many of whom have chronic pain. It is also worth noting that Cannabis may have certain preventative value for such devastating conditions as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. And all this comes with no danger of overdoses or induction of a physical dependence! Let’s be very happy that the cocaine abuse rate is dropping. Let’s not interfere with these dynamics, and then we can possibly achieve what has already been achieved in the Netherlands where the drug overdose rate is 85%(!!) lower than in the US, and that is with much more liberal Cannabis possession laws than in this country! Maybe it is time to give up “dogma” about Cannabis, and to start listening to the experts, if we really want to lower the alcohol/hard drug use in this country, and the accompanying dependencies and overdoses!

By: whale Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:45:04 +0000 In fact,I don’t approve this action.Because it’s not only about revenue ,but also about healthy .If it is leagalized ,more and more people will smoke marijuana ,that will affect a lot of families.

By: nardozi Mon, 11 Oct 2010 01:45:28 +0000 What irks me is the utter lack of attention to the opportunity cost of money spent on drugs. When Joe Hashpipe isn’t spending $160 a month on weed, what do economists suppose they might be spending it on instead? Albums, cheetos and hot wings at the very least, leaving humor aside the same things you and I would buy. Gee, I wonder who thinks that during the depression it might be a good idea to get 10% of people to spend another $160 a month. Think that might help claw us up out of the depression?

By: anonym0us Mon, 11 Oct 2010 01:43:54 +0000 Yes, I personally agree with every reason to legalize MJ, maybe even opiates. However the ones who matter – the Congress – would not, in a rare manifestation of bipartisanship, though each side for own reasons.
Conservatives would oppose it because it is against their so called “moral values”; everyone knows what they would elect between these “values” and common sense.
Liberals would not support it because drug use mostly affects their constituency – the poor and minorities, and they wouldn’t want to be seen by their electorate as promoters of the scourge.
And the centrists… Wait, have you seen any of them in Congress? Lately? The Primaries are organized in such a way that the only ones who can pass the muster are either extreme left, or extreme Conservatives. So – no chance for any meaningful legalization or even decriminalization to pass on federal level any time soon. The only hope is that the states would get it into their own hands, because on state and local level the local issues weigh more than ideology, so the common sense people have much better chances to get elected regardless of affiliation.

By: zaius Sat, 09 Oct 2010 23:57:42 +0000 Entrenched profiteers will not easily cede their extremely profitably franchises.

In other words, neither the cops or the drug dealers want to give up their helicopters and other cool toys.

Any conservative who believes in perpetuating this taxpayer funded fraud needs to reconsider what it means to actually be a conservative.

Ineffective, tax-payer funded social programs like the War on Drugs are not what conservatism is about.

By: txgadfly Sat, 09 Oct 2010 22:26:45 +0000 What is the cost to society of creating millions of people with criminal records because they were caught using marijuana? Were any of these people worth saving? Are we so harsh in our judgment that we destroy these possibly productive lives at a cost of billions out of pocket? While we let Wall Street felons skip?

Let’s stop being an arm of some evangelical religious organization that focuses primarily on sin and hellfire. We waste money on silly crimes of pleasure in this country and allow massive frauds to run rampant.

By: Trooth Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:08:47 +0000 I am a libertarian. How can conservatives want less government interferance in their lives but still support this prohibition? This is an infringement on personal rights. At the least make it legal federally and then allow states to decide how they want to handle it, if they want medical, or full legalization. The DEA has more important things to fight now, and if they had the help of border security the harder drugs would not be make it to the US enmasse like it is now.

The US only needs to look to the south to see where all of the Chicago Gang style violence over our drug prohibition is causing havoc in other nations as they race to become the suppliers for our country’s habit. Prohibition is wrong. Fiscal Conservatives should be behind this 100%. Social conservatives need to stop oppressing other people with their own beliefs. This is America not a shia islamic country.

By: rotnkid Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:27:40 +0000 Way back in the middle 1930s, America was still suffering with/from the great depression. All of the “G-Men” who had fought the war against the evil alcohol were soon to be out of work.

Harry Anslinger who was Assistant Prohibition Commissioner in the Bureau of Prohibition, became the first Commissioner of the Treasury Department’s Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) and basically refused to give up his power (and his G-Men army). So with help (for example William Randolph Hearst, owner of several prominent newspapers ) he began a conspiracy to make hemp illegal … only they called it the evil marijuana (sometimes spelled “marihuana”) and lied to our then lawmakwers in Congress and got it classified as a Schedule 1 drug (zero meditional value) …
hence the WAR ON DRUGS started .
These are known facts … and by this alone … the classification should be repealed …
Based on the fact that marihuana is basically harmless, every lawmaker in our Congress today should repeal the federal ban …