When will pot become a mainstream political issue?

[Barrister]

If you really want to take organized crime completely out of the picture you have to legalize everything, and make it easily available (as in no prescription needed).

Legalize pot if you want.  It will only make a marginal difference to organized crime.

The influence on organized crime is a diversion.  Laws should not be made with organized crime in mind, they should be made with citizens in mind.  A large number of citizens, if not the majority, think laws against marijuana are pointless, and a large subsection of those people have so little respect for that law that they just outright ignore it.

But that's not the argument CC and gups are making.

[crazy canuck]

While I don't know about the 1st assumption, the 2nd one seems almost certain to happen if pot is legalized, given the way we tax alcohol and tobacco.

Then you have undercut your own argument.  "We" cut taxes of tobacco to deal with the tobacco smugglers.

[crazy canuck]

If you really want to take organized crime completely out of the picture you have to legalize everything, and make it easily available (as in no prescription needed).

Legalize pot if you want.  It will only make a marginal difference to organized crime.

The influence on organized crime is a diversion.  Laws should not be made with organized crime in mind, they should be made with citizens in mind.  A large number of citizens, if not the majority, think laws against marijuana are pointless, and a large subsection of those people have so little respect for that law that they just outright ignore it.

But that's not the argument CC and gups are making.

That is only because we are responding to your notion that a change in the law would have little effect on oranized crime - although you appear to have softened your stance on that a bit.  Of course the laws also make no sense given the fact they are not enforced thus bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

[dps]

While I don't know about the 1st assumption, the 2nd one seems almost certain to happen if pot is legalized, given the way we tax alcohol and tobacco.

Then you have undercut your own argument.  "We" cut taxes of tobacco to deal with the tobacco smugglers.

Well, "we" have increased tobacco taxes to discourage consumption.  (Well, actually, more to increase government revenue, but discouraging people from giving themselves lung cancer is generally more politically acceptable to state as the reason.)

[Barrister]

While I don't know about the 1st assumption, the 2nd one seems almost certain to happen if pot is legalized, given the way we tax alcohol and tobacco.

Then you have undercut your own argument.  "We" cut taxes of tobacco to deal with the tobacco smugglers.

Well, "we" have increased tobacco taxes to discourage consumption.  (Well, actually, more to increase government revenue, but discouraging people from giving themselves lung cancer is generally more politically acceptable to state as the reason.)

The problem of tobacco smuggling was smuggling across the Canada-US border, because the US taxes cigarettes at a much lower rate than we did. 

[Jacob]

I don't think legalizing pot is a panacea, but I do think it will bring the following benefits:

- add a source of revenue through taxation, ranging from minor to major.
- free up criminal justice resources and budgets for other tasks (though the scale of that depends on how much it's already decriminalized).
- undercut a significant source of revenue for organized crime groups.
- it's the right thing to do, as there really isn't any health or social arguments to have weed criminalized but not alcohol.

[Gups]

In my view laws should be made on a cost/benefit basis with a presumption in favour of non-interference by the govt.

One of the benefits of legalising cannabis is that it removes an income stream from criminals. Another is that it would provide an income stream to the public purse and could legitamtely employ people.

Another benefit is that the law is ignored by many, enforced sporadically and inconsistently and tends towards making the law look like an ass.

There are lots of other benefits. Plus a few costs.

Arguing about whether one of the benefits is significant or not doesn't imply that it is the only one I think important.

[Malthus]

While I don't know about the 1st assumption, the 2nd one seems almost certain to happen if pot is legalized, given the way we tax alcohol and tobacco.

Then you have undercut your own argument.  "We" cut taxes of tobacco to deal with the tobacco smugglers.

Well, "we" have increased tobacco taxes to discourage consumption.  (Well, actually, more to increase government revenue, but discouraging people from giving themselves lung cancer is generally more politically acceptable to state as the reason.)

The problem of tobacco smuggling was smuggling across the Canada-US border, because the US taxes cigarettes at a much lower rate than we did.

The problem with taxing pot will be that many people right now grow and distribute it illegally, and if the tax is sufficiently high the incentive will remain for them to continue to do so.

[Gups]

That's a problem with taxing it too high, not per se.

There's lots of room for taxation. The profit margins are massive. It's no harder to grow weed than anything else but it sells at $100+ an ounce, that's more than saffron.

[CountDeMoney]

Another benefit is that the law is ignored by many, enforced sporadically and inconsistently and tends towards making the law look like an ass.

Not me, daddyo.  You had so much as a burned out roach on you, a baggie with residue, shitty stems in your ashtray, a pack of EZ Widers in the backseat, you did not pass Go and did not collect $200. 

I had a zero-tolerance policy for stoners.  Why? Because I fucking hate stoners.



Now, a hot chick with some coke...well, that's a situational judgement call.

[Barrister]

While I don't know about the 1st assumption, the 2nd one seems almost certain to happen if pot is legalized, given the way we tax alcohol and tobacco.

Then you have undercut your own argument.  "We" cut taxes of tobacco to deal with the tobacco smugglers.

Well, "we" have increased tobacco taxes to discourage consumption.  (Well, actually, more to increase government revenue, but discouraging people from giving themselves lung cancer is generally more politically acceptable to state as the reason.)

The problem of tobacco smuggling was smuggling across the Canada-US border, because the US taxes cigarettes at a much lower rate than we did.

The problem with taxing pot will be that many people right now grow and distribute it illegally, and if the tax is sufficiently high the incentive will remain for them to continue to do so.

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.

[Jacob]

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.

Well, yeah. But even a small amount of tax money is better than none, and having a market regulated by the government is better for society than having a market regulated by criminal cartels.

[DGuller]

Even if you don't have any tax income for legalization, the cuts on spending on the War on Pot would by themselves be substantial.  A dollar saved is a dollar earned.

[Jacob]

Even if you don't have any tax income for legalization, the cuts on spending on the War on Pot would by themselves be substantial.  A dollar saved is a dollar earned.

That's more of an issue in the US than Canada in terms of the resources committed, I think, but definitely a good point.

[Tonitrus]

Another benefit is that the law is ignored by many, enforced sporadically and inconsistently and tends towards making the law look like an ass.

Not me, daddyo.  You had so much as a burned out roach on you, a baggie with residue, shitty stems in your ashtray, a pack of EZ Widers in the backseat, you did not pass Go and did not collect $200. 

I had a zero-tolerance policy for stoners.  Why? Because I fucking hate stoners.



Now, a hot chick with some coke...well, that's a situational judgement call.

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