1 God, I hate to say this, but St. Andi is at least partially right.

You can make hard liquor at home, too, but it's not exactly legal to do so.  Even less so to sell the stuff.

I'm not the biggest fan of the feds taxing stuff, but if the feds were to legalize pot and treat it the way they treat alcohol, it might (and I stress might, there) result in a lot less headaches for everyone, especially removing it from the "War on Drugs." 

I don't want 13-year-old kids smoking weed or people smoking it while on the roads, but it's a more or less harmless recreational drug, and if we take the incentive out of it being on the black market, I think that might help things.

I speak from some experience here, by the way.  I knew people who grew bumper crops of the stuff up in NorCal out of their apartments, and they kept very little of it for themselves.  They made huge money by selling it to fraternities.  And even if they kept the bulk of it, what would be the harm in doing so?  Especially if it was legalized?

2

It's as 'harmless' as alcohol and tobacco and those have worked out wonderfully, haven't they? Legalizing drugs is a great idea until you spend about 30 seconds thinking about it, then it doesn't sound so hot. (No, I"m not going to bother recounting the arguments, but suffice to say anyone that thinks legalizing drugs is a wonderful idea has completely forgotten that we're not talking about numbers using them but human beings, with all of their frailties, foibles, and idiocies and, as with alcohol, it's just asking for all sorts of new problems even in light of a problematic enforcement situation.)

3 I've smoked pot, a fair few times, did meth, and snorted (never injected) heroine.  But My drug of choice was cocaine (spent a few thousand dollars on it as a kid, had a paper route and worked as a line cook and in the scullery.)

But then I was in an environment were drugs were EVIL! so I stopped doing them.  I ENLISTED stoned on coke.  And being in the Marines was a whole hell of a lot better than being a punk who did drugs.

About 5 years ago (I'm in my mid thirty's) One of my friends a guy I worked with LIT another friend up.  "Doug's been walking the straight and narrow for 11 fucking years, and one night with you, and he gets stoned?!"

There was a conflict based on that.

though, other than coke, it was just curiosity, it was research, Even coke had a different aspect.  I liked it too much so I didn't do it too much (though, as I said, I spent thousands of dollars on it when I was a kid.)

I also like cheap hookers, but I have the discipline to visit them very often.  At least the fat ones.

4 I have the discipline to NOT visit them very often.  But you know, everyone needs a friend.  It's not my fault I happen to have an erection.

5 It's as 'harmless' as alcohol and tobacco and those have worked out wonderfully, haven't they?

And prohibition works even better, huh?

6 Besides the fact that its bullshit, just think how much money we could make if we legalized and taxed prostitution.  Or human slavery?  Just because we could make money is not even remotely a solid argument for it.

I missed this the first time around, and I don't want to provoke a comment war here, but that's an extremely lazy argument. 

On the one hand, you've got people pressed into activities they would never do, and on the other, you've got people doing something of their own free will.  Show me someone who is forced to smoke pot, and then you might have a point. 

7 My point is that legalizing something for the money is a lazy and stupid argument. 

You should always legalize/illegalize something purely on its own merits.  If revenue was a compelling argument on its own in one scenario, it would logically have to be compelling in other scenarios.  It isn't.  Therefore, the monetary argument should just be left out.

And I'd like to point out that I'm completely in favor of decriminalizing marijuana at a federal level.  We are destroying civil rights and millions of lives over something that is definitely not worth that.

But I still think the monetary argument for doing so is completely idiotic and wrong.  Brewing alcohol in my basement takes equipment and tons of time.  Growing pot in my yard takes... dropping pot seeds into the ground and waiting, something potheads are great at.  Everybody would grow their own or buy theirs tax free from somebody who did.  Enforcing the tax laws would be as draconian and invasive as what we have now. 

So, to sum up, we should stop bothering people who smoke pot or grow it or sell it.  It isn't worth the human and economic cost for doing so.  But taxing it isn't going to generate the hundreds of billions of dollars Sully noted in his article and it doesn't matter if it did.  There are a hundred reasons to stop kicking in doors and sending people to prison over a little pot.  Talking about all the awesome profits we'll make just makes it look like they're trying too hard.

8 Sully could really care less about the merits of legalization, he thinks that legalization will somehow justify his use and possession in violation of US law.  Or that he's still using, he knows he dodged a bullet when the charges against him were dissolved, charges that would have sent any other immigrant back to the Old Country, but lacks the self control to stop smoking up.  Or perhaps he recognizes the fact that his preferential treatment is antithetical to the American way, and thinks legalization will dissolve the hypocrisy of it.  Or not, who fucking knows with Sully.

9

Growing pot in my yard takes... dropping pot seeds into the ground and waiting, something potheads are great at.

I've gotta disagree with you there, MP.  My years of misspent youth taught me a few things about potheads: there is not a lazier breed of human on the planet.  Now, I've always been the kind of girl who will pay extra money to not have to do any work myself.  Really, most Americans are the kind of people who will pay extra money to not have to do any work themselves. 

Are there entrepreneuring potheads out there?  Sure.  We call them drug-dealers.  But your average person smoking pot would gladly go to the gas station and buy a 20-pack of joints over growing their own because it's easier, it's faster, and they don't have to do anything but put on slippers and swipe a card. 

Now, sure, there'd be operations that would grow vast amounts at home, I'm sure; but how often do you go out and buy illegal moonshine over a bottle of (taxed) whiskey at the store?  There will be a group of people that would go that route, but I think the average citizen would just buy the taxed, pre-packaged product.

Not that I'm arguing for taxing pot; but, the criminalization of it hasn't been terribly successful, and studies do show it to be on a level with alcohol and cigarettes, so, rather than sending people to jail, let's just try to do something sensible about it.

10 Sean and Ember, you both make good points but I'm going to have to stick with my gut and not believe that legalization would ever net any meaningful revenue.  On the other hand, curbing our spending on enforcement would probably be a nice windfall.

Either way, I doubt we'll see it any time soon as marijuana is still a schedule 1 drug because somebody is insane.  Like I said, I'm for, at least, decriminalization for the civil rights issues alone.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard stories where grandma shot a cop and went to jail because they were kicking in the wrong fucking door.  I mean, POT should never be the reason ANY DOOR IS KICKED IN EVER.  Having spent too much time among that subculture in my youth I can't imagine something more ridiculous. 

Let's fill our prisons with murderers and rapists and pedophiles, not stoned people.  Sure they're essentially valueless to society but so are about 25% of the population no matter what drugs they take (there's a about a 90% venn overlap there, I think) so it makes no difference.

11 Whatever the right answer is (and I'm not terribly excited about legal pot aside from grannies w/ cancer), the answer is not to do what the Obama administration is doing, which is to more or less broadcast that they aren't going to enforce the law.  I can see making it a low priority, but either it's the law or it isn't the law.

12 Whatever the right answer is (and I'm not terribly excited about legal pot aside from grannies w/ cancer), the answer is not to do what the Obama administration is doing, which is to more or less broadcast that they aren't going to enforce the law.  I can see making it a low priority, but either it's the law or it isn't the law.

I'm torn on this one, Joe.  You're right - saying that they aren't going to enforce the law is a boneheaded move from anyone.  On the other hand, part of the problem here is a conflict with federal law vs. state law.  And I'm going to go for the state's right to do what they want 9 times out of 10.  In states where smoking pot leads to more unnecessary arrests than others, causing a bigger drain on the taxpayers because of legal costs, the state should be able to say, "Okay, this doesn't make any sense, and in the interests of our residents, we're going to make a common-sense law."  Whether that common sense law is decriminalization, legalization, or partial legalization, the state should have the right to make that decision without federal intervention.

13 The truth is marijuana is LESS harmful than alcohol or nicotine, MUCH LESS harmful.  In fact, recent studies have suggested marijuana is less addictive than chocolate, but more addictive than anchovies.  LOL  I was once in your shoes, believing marijuana was baaaaaaaad as I sipped my Smirnoff Ice.  Then, I met someone I couldn't believe smoked pot and I started to take notice.  After trying it, I can honestly say I have no idea why it's illegal.  It's such a no-brainer to legalize it.  The only reason it's still illegal is because propaganda works very well on the weak-minded, like the original poster above.  I can tell you've never smoked it, sir.  It's so painfully obvious.  My advice to you is do not try to speak about concepts you obviously have no clue about because it's painfully obvious to everyone who knows better, which the latest polls show is about 70% of the population.  In other words, only 30% of the population are reading your words and allowing the nonsense to soak in.  Everyone else is simply clicking X before their IQs drop any further.  Have a nice day!  Stick to stock reports and other black-and-white subjects and leave the real thinking to the stoners.  www.stonerarmy.com

14 Anyone else get the feeling Samantha took a few tokes before she wrote the last few sentences there?  

15

I love people who just spout off statistics without backing them up.  Who studied the addictive properties of anchovies vs. marijuana, for heaven's sake?

16 Samantha is now my argument.  Legalizing marijuana could only increase the number of people like her. 

I rest my case.

P.S.  Never smoked it?  Hah.  Hahahahaha.....

BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

And Smirnoff Ice?  What a bitch.

17 Dude!  I like, TOTALLY need to blow some minds here... I have (for the record) seriously NEVER once smoked (or in any other manner consumed) pot.  Nor any other prohibited drug.  I HAVE drank under age, and I smoked tobacco legally(I've since quit).  And I have zero interest in trying.  HOWEVER, I am completely in favor of legalization.

Leave aside the dubious taxation rewards (I'm willing to conceed there might be little to no taxable income from pot), leave aside the benefit from not spending money on narcotics enforcement if the cops don't have to chase down pot growers/users.  Hell, leave all that out and let's get down to brass tacks.  For one thing, ending Prohibition REMOVED the violent crime associated with alcohol smuggling.  Gone.  Sure, it shifted elsewhere (into prostitution and gambling, but it had already been there), but seriously, when's the last time you heard of someone getting gunned down for being a rumrunner?

But even more importantly, who the hell is responsible for you?  Who OWNS your body?  You or the government?  If it's you, then what business does the government have in telling you what is or is not ok to put into your body?  Sure, if I get stoned and smash your car into a little old lady, throw the book at me.  Just like if I had been drunk.  But from what little I know of pot usage, about the only violent crime that a pothead is likely to commit would be upon a bag of Doritos.  I don't want to smoke pot.  Hell, I barely DRINK anymore.  But I certainly don't want the government to be in the habit of telling me what's ok and what's not ok to put in my body.  Because sure as shit, one of these days, some government hippy will try to take away my bacon, and on that day there will be blood.

18

From previous comment:

 

“Either it’s the law or it isn’t the law”

 

Oh, but the non-enforcement of existing laws is not a bug – it’s a feature!  It means that de facto, people do things in their everyday lives that are illegal because no one enforces the law, so that by practice, the government can arrest anyone, anytime, because we are all breaking some law.  Why do you think the federal code is so hard to understand?  A quick quote:

 

"Do you think that we want those laws to be observed?
We want them broken. There’s no way to rule innocent men.
The only power the government has is the power to crack down
on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime that
it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." – Ayn Rand

 

Example:

 

Speed limits are not eliminated, but it is found that LEOs have stopped enforcing them.  How many of you, under that circumstance, would adhere to the speed limit in such an instance?  No one can honestly say that they would.  However, if you found yourself singled out by government officials in some way, then they could start pulling YOU over and ticketing YOU for speeding when everyone else is doing it, because, non-enforcement or not, you are breaking a law.  It is the ultimate discretional weapon over a power that government holds absolute control of:

 

Violence and coercion by threat of violence..

 

As soon as everyone becomes a criminal, then the government can allowably threaten violence against all in the name of the law.  

19 ^The worst part about that?

Stuff like that used to sound crazy.

20 healthy citizens