When will pot become a mainstream political issue?

[CountDeMoney]

You probably got all Rodney King on people who fed their cats generic cat food too. 

I was rather...strong-armed with animal abusers.  Catching my first Little Dazzling Urbanite shits setting a cat on fire, the name plate came off.   

[Malthus]

That's what I've been saying.

The notion that pot is going to bring in some huge amount of tax money is false, because if the tax rate is all that high illegal growers will continue.

It is true, you can't tax pot prohibitively.

What is needed is a tax that is low enough that growing the stuff "legally" is generally still more rewarding than doing so "illegally". That way, you can raise a great deal of tax money (though there will still of course be some illegal distribution).

This is hardly a unique situation - see moonshine.

[Tonitrus]

Well, on the tax angle...the only people paying tax will be those too lazy to grow their own...or don't have a buddy who is a growing their own.

I think pushing the "ZOMG BIG POT TAX REVENUE" is a mistake...there won't be much there.

[Jacob]

Well, on the tax angle...the only people paying tax will be those too lazy to grow their own...or don't have a buddy who is a growing their own.

Lots of people are lazy and lots of people lack access to places to grow pot.

[Tonitrus]

Well, on the tax angle...the only people paying tax will be those too lazy to grow their own...or don't have a buddy who is a growing their own.

Lots of people are lazy and lots of people lack access to places to grow pot.

Yeah, but it's not going to be like tobacco...heck, raw pot would probably be all over the farmer's market circuit.

[Jacob]

Yeah, but it's not going to be like tobacco...heck, raw pot would probably be all over the farmer's market circuit.

Nothing wrong with that, IMO.

[CountDeMoney]

Well, on the tax angle...the only people paying tax will be those too lazy to grow their own...or don't have a buddy who is a growing their own.

Lots of people are lazy and lots of people lack access to places to grow pot.

Yeah, but it's not going to be like tobacco...heck, raw pot would probably be all over the farmer's market circuit.

I don't think so...a regulated vegetable substance for consumer use will definitely fall under the FDA and USDA.  Bet you wouldn't be able to grow pot for anything beyond personal use anymore than you can't get away with 75 acres of corn.

[Malthus]

Well, on the tax angle...the only people paying tax will be those too lazy to grow their own...or don't have a buddy who is a growing their own.

I think pushing the "ZOMG BIG POT TAX REVENUE" is a mistake...there won't be much there.

Nope. Most people lack the time and inclination to become horticulturalists.

Shit, I had a buddy years ago who had a grow-op. The money sure looked sweet ... until you worked out how much damn work was involved (never mind the chance of decorating a jail cell!).

And that was at illegal pot prices. If pot was legal, and it could be grown by big concerns, the price per unit is going to drop, a lot. Doing all that work for a product when you have to compete on price with major farms is simply not going to be worth it financially for the small operator (unless the tax is truly prohibitive).

[Tonitrus]

Well, I'd think that if people were paying illegal-pot prices, they want a quality product...which means all the lights and chemicals and shit, though I imagine most of which is probably because you have to grow it in the basement to hide it from the Heat.  If Legal Joe Pothead just wants to get high on the weekend, just pluck some out of the backyard, roll it and light it.  Probably won't get too fussy over THC levels and all that crap.

Heck, there will probably be Pot Chia Pets, or you can grow it on the kitchen counter next to some common herbs.

[Ed Anger]

Then the Chinese pot arrives, with lead in it.

[CountDeMoney]

Then the Chinese pot arrives, with lead in it.

No shit.
If they can fuck up the international truffles market, they can put sawdust and pesticide in BC Bud.

[dps]

Well, on the tax angle...the only people paying tax will be those too lazy to grow their own...or don't have a buddy who is a growing their own.

Lots of people are lazy and lots of people lack access to places to grow pot.

You can grow the shit in a closet under a UV light.  Nobody lacks access to places to grow it.

Granted, lots of people are lazy.

[Habsburg]

The proposition on our Nov ballot (WA state) to legalize Ganja looks, at this point, as thought it will pass.
If it does, that's the Genie out of the bottle.

[jimmy olsen]

Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.

This may have actually been better placed in the thread on Obamacare and the Supreme Court, but I find it very interesting that in 1919 we didn't think Congress had the power to ban alcohol without a Constitutional amendment, less than 20 years later we repealed that amendment (so, in theory Congress no longer had the power to ban alcohol, right?), and then Congress started criminalizing other recreational drugs.  Yet, oddly, I don't recall ever hearing an advocate for decriminalization of pot (or other harder drugs) argue for a strict interpretation of the commerce clause.

Interesting. I've never thought of it that way before. 

[dps]

Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.

This may have actually been better placed in the thread on Obamacare and the Supreme Court, but I find it very interesting that in 1919 we didn't think Congress had the power to ban alcohol without a Constitutional amendment, less than 20 years later we repealed that amendment (so, in theory Congress no longer had the power to ban alcohol, right?), and then Congress started criminalizing other recreational drugs.  Yet, oddly, I don't recall ever hearing an advocate for decriminalization of pot (or other harder drugs) argue for a strict interpretation of the commerce clause.

Interesting. I've never thought of it that way before. 

I've actually been thinking about this for some time.  It seems obvious to me that if before the 18th Amendment, the Commerce Clause didn't give the Federal Government the power to outlaw alcohol, then it didn't have the power to outlaw other drugs, either.  Of course, the conception of what the Commerce Clause did allow underwent a profound change during the 1930s, but I've become increasingly convinced that the courts have allowed the Federal government to take to much power through virtually unchecked use of the Commerce Clause (combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause).  At this point, I think that many Federal drug laws are simply unconstitutional, especially those that criminalize mere possession (hint to Fireblade--if you get caught by the Feds, don't try this argument in court, especially if the individual mandate is upheld).  Note that state drug laws are a different matter, since states have general police powers that the Federal government isn't supposed to have.