Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

To bring another issue into this thread, what effect will CO/WA legalizing pot have on long term status of THC as a Schedule I substance? The Controlled Substances Act borders on the edge of constitutionality, and would the defendants be able to appeal the statute, letting the court decide the legitimacy of its interstate commerce clause justification. Will it be a court orderedd change that allows pot in the US? Or will it be congressional action to change the law?

At 1/6/13 02:38 AM, Light wrote: If it's too heavily taxed, then people may acquire the drug through alternative methods.

Don't people already do that? It'll still decrease the amount of people who do it.

At 1/6/13 10:37 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 1/6/13 02:38 AM, Light wrote: If it's too heavily taxed, then people may acquire the drug through alternative methods.

Don't people already do that? It'll still decrease the amount of people who do it.

You have to be careful taxing marijuana, especially with other federal narcotics laws on the book. The original method through which marijuana was controlled (the marijuana tax act of 1937) was eventually ruled unconstitutional because while the MTA didn't forbid the possession of cannabis, other laws did, so in order to receive the tax stamp, you had to admit to violating a federal law, which the Supreme Court found was a violation of the 5th amendment right not to self incriminate.

At 1/6/13 02:38 AM, Light wrote:
Bad idea.

If it's too heavily taxed, then people may acquire the drug through alternative methods.

Higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol haven't "forced" people to buy those substances illegally.

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

You'd be pretty dumb to believe that.

That's my personal gain from legalized weed. Just like alcoholics are much more likely to stay at home and drink all day, pot heads are doing the same. They are both depressants and are addictive substances for certain portions of the population.

At 1/6/13 03:47 PM, Saen wrote:

At 1/6/13 02:38 AM, Light wrote:
Bad idea.

If it's too heavily taxed, then people may acquire the drug through alternative methods.

Higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol haven't "forced" people to buy those substances illegally.

With legalization, marijuana's costs go down. In Colorado, costs of the drug have dropped to less than a fourth of pre-legalization prices. This is mainly due to an increase of supply in the 'legal' market, also less fear and risk in the handling of the drug.

Let's say the government wants to get greedy and tax heavily, bringing the prices to black market levels during the time of pre-legalization, they will only be fueling the underground tax-free market of growing, co-ops, and bartering for the drug. If someone can legally grow 2 or 3 plants annually to get a year supply of weed, why would they pay several thousand dollars over the course of that year to buy it in a store? Also, why not grow several more plants and sell to a select group of friends below market price, all technically legal, and at the same time flipping the bird to the IRS?

The government has to weigh the pros/cons of the tax argument by deciding whether or not large revenues are worth having if the demand for the existence of a large black market continues due to the overprice.

At 1/8/13 10:39 AM, Gunner-D wrote:
With legalization, marijuana's costs go down. In Colorado, costs of the drug have dropped to less than a fourth of pre-legalization prices. This is mainly due to an increase of supply in the 'legal' market, also less fear and risk in the handling of the drug.

That's very cool and expected, but it's all I need to set your worries free. Lets say the government imposes a 20% tax (which is quite a heft tax) on marijuana sales. So if prices have already dropped more than 75% of pre-legalization value, lets do the math.

Original black market value of weed = 1, legalized value < .25bm (of black market value), legalized value + 20% tax = .25bm(1.2) = .3bm. So even with a 20% tax imposed, the legal cost of weed is still less than 1/3 of the black market value.

Let's say the government wants to get greedy and tax heavily, bringing the prices to black market levels during the time of pre-legalization, they will only be fueling the underground tax-free market of growing, co-ops, and bartering for the drug. If someone can legally grow 2 or 3 plants annually to get a year supply of weed, why would they pay several thousand dollars over the course of that year to buy it in a store? Also, why not grow several more plants and sell to a select group of friends below market price, all technically legal, and at the same time flipping the bird to the IRS?

The government has to weigh the pros/cons of the tax argument by deciding whether or not large revenues are worth having if the demand for the existence of a large black market continues due to the overprice.

Very interesting hypothesis..

At 1/3/13 04:06 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 12/29/12 11:36 AM, CaptainCornhole wrote: I think the question we really all should be asking is "Should we marijulize legalana"?

No, think about pot heads, most of them are amazingly slow.

That's the fucking point, marijuana makes you relax, which is just one reason it is statistically responsible for lower rates of death than other drugs, even legal ones.

I wil not use or support any drug that causes one to lose control over themselves, even to a small extent. (with the exeption of medically prescribed drugs and then it becomes a mixture between wary distrust and cautious acceptance)

Yes, marijuana does cause the user to lose control over themselves. It only dulls the reflexes, it dulls the mind.

Alcohol is slightly different merely because of its prevalence as a cultural item. I will not consume it myself, but I will not obstruct others from doing so.

Hell yes it should be legalized I don't see why it shouldn't be I mean really what business does the government have in what a person consumes?. You can hate weed all you want and debate why it's bad for you but until the government can truly provide evidence why marijuana is so evil they need to stay out of the issue. Alcohol is a dangerous drug and yet is culturally acceptable it just doesn't make since at all.

And really when your high off our ass on your couch eating Cheetos how are you that much of a threat to society?

At 1/9/13 03:02 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Gah angry self righteous pothead above.

So one of the common arguments involves alcohol but the that is really an apples and oranges comparison.
For many different reasons alcohol consumption is cemented in human history.

Some say it is responsible for the rise of civilization.
There are religious connections to alcohol.
Historically it was a substitute for water when clean water wasn't an option.
In a social setting alcohol is less intrusive to those not participating -Drinking vs Smoking

All of these go towards making alcohol more socially acceptable.

All of those above, apply equally to booze and pot...or any (natural) drug, really...minus the water part..but even coca leaves and pot were used as medicine

At 1/9/13 03:19 PM, Ceratisa wrote: What major religions have a pot connection? (Honestly curious)

Almost every major religion in the world had a spiritual connection to marijuana

At 1/9/13 06:14 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Um reading the article, No traditional Islamic or Buddhism use. No actual mention Jewish or Christian use.
So basically Hindu and other minor or gone religious views?

The world is much bigger and older than Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

We're talking about a plant who's existence pre-dates humans....it only makes sense to acknowledge historical cultures as well

At 1/9/13 06:21 PM, Ceratisa wrote: I'm sorry when you said major religion I thought we were talking about major religions my fault for misunderstanding.

As opposed to the 76% of the world that has no religious connection to pot currently.

I'm sorry, I meant cultures...like historically, I guess

At 1/8/13 10:39 AM, Gunner-D wrote:

At 1/6/13 03:47 PM, Saen wrote:

At 1/6/13 02:38 AM, Light wrote:
Bad idea.

If it's too heavily taxed, then people may acquire the drug through alternative methods.

Higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol haven't "forced" people to buy those substances illegally.

With legalization, marijuana's costs go down. In Colorado, costs of the drug have dropped to less than a fourth of pre-legalization prices. This is mainly due to an increase of supply in the 'legal' market, also less fear and risk in the handling of the drug.

Let's say the government wants to get greedy and tax heavily, bringing the prices to black market levels during the time of pre-legalization, they will only be fueling the underground tax-free market of growing, co-ops, and bartering for the drug. If someone can legally grow 2 or 3 plants annually to get a year supply of weed, why would they pay several thousand dollars over the course of that year to buy it in a store? Also, why not grow several more plants and sell to a select group of friends below market price, all technically legal, and at the same time flipping the bird to the IRS?

The government has to weigh the pros/cons of the tax argument by deciding whether or not large revenues are worth having if the demand for the existence of a large black market continues due to the overprice.

Doesn't Colorado's state government already added $1 Million + to their education budget/revenue from estimated tax profits? After enough states catch on and make a buck, the federal government will want to get in on the action and they'll take back damn near everything demoralizing they said about it. No doubt it will happen.

Why Not.

it depends on how it is intended to be used. If it's for cancer then yes

I think it should be allowed in society, like everything else when its used in moderation it should be fine. This can be a good source of revenue for the Government if it's taxed.

Any substance that is ingested privately cannot be prosecuted by the government.

If I want to kill myself it's my business.

At 1/26/13 06:03 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Any substance that is ingested privately cannot be prosecuted by the government.

If I want to kill myself it's my business.

Actually the sick thing is attempted suicide is a criminal offense.

At 1/26/13 06:05 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/26/13 06:03 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Any substance that is ingested privately cannot be prosecuted by the government.

If I want to kill myself it's my business.

Actually the sick thing is attempted suicide is a criminal offense.

Probably only because of life insurance companies.

Although I do not smoke marijuana, I think it should be legalized. I think it should replace tobacco because marijuana is healthier than tobacco and has been shown to help in diseases such as Alzheimer's. The only downside to marijuana is that it is a hallucinogenic. Tobacco was meant to relax your body, but marijuana also does this, as shown in the diagram of effects of marijuana below. If marijuana was legalized, I predict we would have another law stating that we shouldn't drive while under the effects of marijuana, like alcohol.

At 1/27/13 01:29 PM, scoutthesoldier wrote: Although I do not smoke marijuana, I think it should be legalized. I think it should replace tobacco because marijuana is healthier than tobacco and has been shown to help in diseases such as Alzheimer's.

True, I mean if you look at some commercials, you hear about how they advertise drugs that can give you blood clot, stroke, and heart attack. Why are those legal but marijuana isn't?

At 1/27/13 03:08 PM, Ericho wrote: True, I mean if you look at some commercials, you hear about how they advertise drugs that can give you blood clot, stroke, and heart attack. Why are those legal but marijuana isn't?

I'm tired of explaining this over and over and over again.

Drug companies are required to disclose all problems that occurred to any patient during the double blind study REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY CONNECTION TO THE DRUG OR NOT.

Terrible correlation to make.