|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
under those not so far-fetched circumstances
You've got to be kidding me.
Quote:
Maybe pot smokers aren't going to go crazy on anyone ..... but Heroin? Cocaine? Prescription drug thiefs? Really?
I've used cocaine before in the past. I've also used prescription drugs for recreation.
Are you worried that I'm going to murder your spouse?
How about the other 15 Dawgtalkers that have used cocaine?
And let me ask you -- does your opinion coincide with alcohol?
You ever hear or see police come to a scene of domestic violence? You know what one of their first questions is? "Were they drinking?/Do they drink?" They ask that question often in many situations where violence occured, because the two have such a high correlation.
By your logic, we need to lock up D.U.I. offenders, because if we don't they might murder their spouses.
After all, people who drink are prone to violence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I'm going to jump in here for ytown and he can tag back in if I'm wrong... Quote:
I've used cocaine before in the past. I've also used prescription drugs for recreation.
Are you worried that I'm going to murder your spouse?
How about the other 15 Dawgtalkers that have used cocaine?
Addicts are worse than occassional users just like alcoholics are worse than social drinkers.... and maybe not today is the average cocaine user going to kill somebody.. maybe 6 months from now when you have lost your job and really need that fix.. maybe you don't set out to kill, you set out to rob...
Quote:
And let me ask you -- does your opinion coincide with alcohol?
You ever hear or see police come to a scene of domestic violence? You know what one of their first questions is? "Were they drinking?/Do they drink?" They ask that question often in many situations where violence occured, because the two have such a high correlation.
Sort of yes, I would put alcohol in the discussion.
Quote:
By your logic, we need to lock up D.U.I. offenders, because if we don't they might murder their spouses.
I'm not sure that ytown ever argued that every non-violent drug offender should be locked up.. he just argued that having a blanket "acquittal" policy because you don't agree with the law is pretty stupid.
The reason we have attorneys and judges and juries is to hash out the details of each case independently and reach a conclusion.... which is what they should do.. which is why I am against mandatory sentencing and zero tolerance policies.. both will not allow you to consider mitigating factors...
I don't think the college kid found with an ounce of pot in his backpack is close to killing anybody because he has drugs.. but the homeless person with a few rocks of crack? Do you want to argue that they are the same since neither is distributing and both just have enough for personal use... or are we not allowed to profile that one might just be a little more dangerous than the other?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Addicts are worse than occassional users just like alcoholics are worse than social drinkers.... and maybe not today is the average cocaine user going to kill somebody.. maybe 6 months from now when you have lost your job and really need that fix.. maybe you don't set out to kill, you set out to rob...
Cases involving non-violent drug offenders aren't limited to addicts and drug dealers, just as cases involving a D.U.I. or alcohol aren't limited to alcoholics.
Beyond that -- he's arguing that drug use indicates a propensity towards violence. That's not a wrong argument per say, but he's making it very poorly and using absurd examples. Now, I've asked him --
Should someone who gets a D.U.I. or a non-violent conviction of alcohol related nature be viewed as someone who will possibly leave the courtroom and murder the spouse of a jury member?
That's essentially what he's arguing.
Quote:
I don't think the college kid found with an ounce of pot in his backpack is close to killing anybody because he has drugs.. but the homeless person with a few rocks of crack? Do you want to argue that they are the same since neither is distributing and both just have enough for personal use... or are we not allowed to profile that one might just be a little more dangerous than the other?
If I asked 100 people who was more dangerous: a homeless crack addict or a pot-smoking college student, the homeless crack addict would probably be the answer 100 time out of 100.
Turns out the pot smoking college student was Jared Loughner. He shot 19 people and killed 6.
This line of debate not only stereotypes or profiles, but it essentially presupposes further actions without any evidence to support them.
In YTown's case, it's the nutty argument that the kid with a gram of coke in his pocket is going to kill a jury member's spouse after the trial.
It's an argument that has no bearing in reality, on several levels.
That question is on par with 'Who are you more afraid of stealing form you - a black guy or a white guy?'
Statistically, it would be the black guy, but that doesn't make arguing that blacks are more dangerous logical.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
regardless of how poorly Ytown was arguing the issue, having a blanket acquittel is not only wrong (and illegal depending on how it was done), but also would set an extremely bad precedent going forward. if this became the standard for how people protest things they disagree with, then you will always have a tainted jury pool. yes, people will have opinions and that will shape their decision when on a jury, but to say you are going to go with a particular side with no reference to the facts in a case is extremely stupid.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
No ... my argument was not that they "will" ...... it that they are far, far more predisposed to a possible violent future because of the path they are on. (especially, as you ignored, those caught with an enormous amount of drugs on them ..... obviously for resale ...... or those who are in horrible shape ...... who have lost their homes, jobs, and families/friends because of the unrelenting attraction of the drugs that overcomes all friendship, all loyalty,. and all inability to earn money.
And yes, I would include repeat DUI offenders into that category. If you are so dumb that you get 2 or 3 DUIs in a short period of time, then you have proven that you cannot be a responsible member of society, and you must be removed for the protection of others around you.
As far as much of the rest, DC summed up most of it pretty well.
Now ... since you've ignored my repeated question, let me ask it yet again.
If you are on a jury, and you have a "non violent" person captured in the process of trying to buy a huge amount of cocaine ..... obviously for resale ........ but the person gave themselves up immediately and without problem ..... what do you do? How do you, Jury Member PDR, how do you vote regarding acquittal or hearing the trial through to its conclusion before making up your mind?
How do you vote?
Maybe you'll answer this time.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Cases involving non-violent drug offenders aren't limited to addicts and drug dealers, just as cases involving a D.U.I. or alcohol aren't limited to alcoholics.
Which was sort of the basis for my point that that is why not all cases should be treated the same.. specifically in the article YOU posted, it advocated that ALL cases be acquitted.
Quote:
Should someone who gets a D.U.I. or a non-violent conviction of alcohol related nature be viewed as someone who will possibly leave the courtroom and murder the spouse of a jury member?
That's essentially what he's arguing.
Well if you would rather belabor one potentially poorly worded example than get back on topic.. have at it. 
Quote:
If I asked 100 people who was more dangerous: a homeless crack addict or a pot-smoking college student, the homeless crack addict would probably be the answer 100 time out of 100.
Turns out the pot smoking college student was Jared Loughner. He shot 19 people and killed 6.
Right because Loughner was just your ordinary run of the mill pot smoking on a Friday night college student..  Who was also on LSD, mushrooms, who had been fired from his job at Quiznos, who had a community college say he couldn't come back until he had a psych evaluation, and who two people are on record as saying looked like a likely candidate for a school shooting... He is EXACTLY the kid who should be remanded if caught with pot in his backpack because people already knew he was a threat... but your "acquit everybody" article would not have allowed that.
Quote:
That question is on par with 'Who are you more afraid of stealing form you - a black guy or a white guy?'
Statistically, it would be the black guy, but that doesn't make arguing that blacks are more dangerous logical.
If blacks commit, by percentage, the greatest number of thefts then why is it illogical to say that they are more dangerous?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
If you are on a jury, and you have a "non violent" person captured in the process of trying to buy a huge amount of cocaine ..... obviously for resale ........ but the person gave themselves up immediately and without problem ..... what do you do? How do you, Jury Member PDR, how do you vote regarding acquittal or hearing the trial through to its conclusion before making up your mind?
How do you vote?
If the activity and subsequent arrest were non-violent in nature, I would vote to acquit.
However, the scenario you've described is highly unlikely. A multi-kilo undercover sting arrest doesn't happen without a prolonged investigation that runs deep through complicated webs of organized crime... and when that happens, you will almost certainly find violent acts in the laundry list of indictments.
But for the sake of the scenario -- someone caught buying multiple kilos for resale and distribution without any violent activity taking place would get a not guilty vote from me.
I agree with the author's premise. Non-violent drug cases will get not guilty votes from me. Is that an illogical standpoint? Yes, it is.
But no more illogical than voting Republican because you don't like Democrats.
The laws are draconian and unreasonable, and I will not subject anyone to them.
And for all of those who keep saying that what we're discussing is illegal -- it isn't illegal in the slightest.
Any prosecutor has the right and opportunity to ask me any number of questions pertaining to my opinions and biases, and dismiss me accordingly upon hearing them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
I just find it very interesting that someone would take a stance towards acquitting so long as the "crime" was non-violent?
Or did I miss something?
Because otherwise you are saying things like theft, rape, selling sex slaves, framing and extortion, possesing steriods, drugging others, poisoning others, seducing minors, .... that's all ok in your book as long as it's not violent?
Just not sure I got what you said correctly and didn't want to assume.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I just find it very interesting that someone would take a stance towards acquitting so long as the "crime" was non-violent?
Or did I miss something?
Because otherwise you are saying things like theft, rape, selling sex slaves, framing and extortion, possesing steriods, drugging others, poisoning others, seducing minors, .... that's all ok in your book as long as it's not violent?
Just not sure I got what you said correctly and didn't want to assume.
I don't find any of the things you listed to have unreasonable sentences.
Not only do I firmly believe that our drug laws are far too harsh, but they don't even work. They're a complete and utter failure. They've done absolutely nothing to remedy the situation, and as things have snowballed, it's become more of a war on the underclass than a war on drugs.
Furthermore ... I don't view drug use, abuse or sale as a crime. I know there will be people that come back and say 'but it is a crime'. I'm aware of that. I find it to be more of a mental health issue than a moral or criminal one.
If it were up to me, I'd decriminalize drugs tomorrow and throw every penny spent enforcing drug laws into rehabilitation clinics and job training programs.
Would that fix everything? Absolutely not.
But it would be far, far better than where we find ourselves today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Ok ... gotcha. As I think you saw ... wasn't trying to accuse you of anything - just making sure I understood.
And as far as taking care of the problem - I agree.. untold billions have been wasted - then billions more to incarcerate people.
Here's how you get rid of drugs. Tell anyone that if they can turn in someone who supplies them with drugs, they can legally receive 25% of the illegal money that is seized by the dealer, and then they can also have 25% of all drugs seized from the dealer as well....
Everyone who is an addict will end up turning in their dealers ... dealers will either realize they need to control their supply in a lot more moderation - or they will need to be cautious in who they sell to ... either way you have a lot less on the streets. Then - supply and demand kicks in and the remaining dealers who aren't in jail (perhaps deported? maybe put in work camps? maybe turned into steelers fans? I dont know ...) will charge a lot more for drugs. At that point it would make sense for the government to control it.
Is it high brow stuff? Yes. Is it frowned upon by some? yes. Can they control it? ... Look at gambling. Illegal most of the time unless they call it a "state lottery" ...same can be done with drugs.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
Well then I hope that those "harmless" dealers and abusers wind up living next door to you rather than next door to me.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Here's how you get rid of drugs.
That's like saying 'here's how you end violence'.
Quote:
Tell anyone that if they can turn in someone who supplies them with drugs, they can legally receive 25% of the illegal money that is seized by the dealer, and then they can also have 25% of all drugs seized from the dealer as well....
Not terrible. But I don't think it's feasible.
First, not all drug sales are through some shady dealer.
I would have no idea what the figures are ... but I know a lot of people who use drugs ... almost all of them gets their drugs from personal friends.
Beyond that ... many people do not trust the police and the government. I myself ... if someone told me tomorrow that this was the new way of doing things ... I'd want nothing to do with it. And a lot of folks (mainly the ones the offer would be on the table for) would feel the same way.
You're increasing an already embarrassingly large prison population for no reason.
Definitely increasing violence.
And, finally ... when you begin to climb up the ladder of drug dealers and drug money, you eventually run into powerful, legitimized folks.
But, hell, who knows ... I've certainly heard plenty of ideas that were much worse.
Quote:
At that point it would make sense for the government to control it.
The government has proven time and again again that it cannot control it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
However, the scenario you've described is highly unlikely. A multi-kilo undercover sting arrest doesn't happen without a prolonged investigation that runs deep through complicated webs of organized crime... and when that happens, you will almost certainly find violent acts in the laundry list of indictments.
Wrong. Check out Ohio Highway Patrol drug arrests on Ohio turnpike. I don't know where you live - but I live just a few miles - 10 - from the turnpike. It is amazing how many people get pulled over and, lo and behold - due to profiling that the OHP will never admit - that are carrying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of drugs.
(side note - it's also amazing that someone transporting huge amounts of drugs would actually drive 85 in a 70 mph zone - but that's beside the point) The point is, it doesn't take years, or weeks, of work to profile a drug runner. Honestly - while not a weekly event around here, it's definitely a monthly event.
And yes - the guys caught are more than likely always just mules - but arresting them does several things: prevents drugs from getting to people like you, it sets a precedence that running drugs through Ohio (or anywhere) can get you serious jail time, and it does prevent some from doing it.
Now, those guys running hundreds of thousands of dollars of drugs - even if they were non violent - you are in favor of acquitting them??????????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I believe the scenario originally given involved a sale to an officer.
Many people are using "drug user", "drug dealer", and "thug" as though they all meant the same thing. There is a HUGE difference between the average pot smoker, and the average crystal meth user.
Meth, Heroin, Crack are for the most part the drugs most people are scared of. These are where your junkies are found. These are what I always called "needle drugs." The violence is largely due to the price, and the price is high largely because it is illegal.
Pot, Shrooms, Peyote, LSD are a completely different crowd. No junkies, no addicts, violence and/or theft fairly rare. Pot is now a major cash crop in California. At least 10-15 years ago, there were no known cases of any overdose death from either Pot or LSD.
The tax plan for pot was done in the mid-70's, Indiana or Illinois University, they projected 2-3 Billion dollars annually.
Another post gave a laundry list of rape, robbery, other serious crimes that nobody wants. Crimes for which significantly less prison time is handed out than for simple possession of a pound or two of pot.
For the poll, except for Ketamine, H, crack, and a couple of new ones at the bottom, nearly all of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
Quote:
What if a guy gets busted trying to buy 10 kilos of cocaine. The "good people" of your organization decide to acquit him because he's "non-violent". The next day ..... as so often happens in the real drug world ..... someone opens fire on someone else, and people die as a direct result of the acquitted person's action
They go out and kill someone the next day because that is how things work in an illegal drug world. You can't go to a cop and say "I sold a kilo of coke to this guy and he ran off without paying". No, they settle their disputes themselves, with guns. If there was a legal market, there would be no black market, and the perils associated with one.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
If there was a legal market, there would be no black market, and the perils associated with one
not true. example: many prescription drugs are perfectly legal if prescribed. yet, they have a huge black market.
i doubt that we are going to get to a scenario where not only are all drugs legal but that there are no limitations on buying them.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
There is a black market for prescription drugs, because its illegal to use them without a prescription. If marijuana was 100% legal there would be no black market, because everyone could grow their own.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
There is a black market for prescription drugs, because its illegal to use them without a prescription. If marijuana was 100% legal there would be no black market, because everyone could grow their own.
my point was that I doubt that we are going to get to a point where all drugs are 100% legal, so there will still be a black market.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
Well yeah, there will always be a black market for illegal goods and services.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
Quote:
Quote:
What if a guy gets busted trying to buy 10 kilos of cocaine. The "good people" of your organization decide to acquit him because he's "non-violent". The next day ..... as so often happens in the real drug world ..... someone opens fire on someone else, and people die as a direct result of the acquitted person's action
They go out and kill someone the next day because that is how things work in an illegal drug world. You can't go to a cop and say "I sold a kilo of coke to this guy and he ran off without paying". No, they settle their disputes themselves, with guns. If there was a legal market, there would be no black market, and the perils associated with one.
Umm ... murder is illegal now ..... yet it still happens ........ even over the stupidest of things.
Change the circumstances and murderers will still find a reason to kill.
Also, do you really think that drugs would be allowed to be sold "on the street" if they were legal? lol Sure ..... just like thousands of people are growing their own tobacco today for sale on the street. There is no way that it would get by without taxation ..... so yes, the illegal drug dealer would still resort to violence if someone stole his stuff.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
Dude, if marijuana is 100% legal, you won't have drug dealers shooting at eachother over the exchange of money for marijuana and money, because everyone could grow it themselves. I'm not sure why people are struggling with this idea. Quote:
Change the circumstances and murderers will still find a reason to kill.
So let's just say every year 1,000 people kill other people over marijuana deals. If those 1,000 people could grow their own weed, they would find another reason to go kill someone? Like they need a "kill someone" fix? 
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
I also have to laugh at the whole "grow your own" bit.
How many people grow their own tobacco today? Not many. Why? There are still a slew of laws governing tobacco. People could still go to jail for breaking those laws. Worse yet ... in these cases it's the tax guys on the case ....... and they make the cops look tame by comparison.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
Quote:
I also have to laugh at the whole "grow your own" bit
Not sure why, sounds like you don't know many people that grow their own.
Again, this is going off of 100% legality. Not saying it will ever happen because even today, no country has weed 100% legal, just varying degrees of decriminlization.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
I know of some people who do ..... much as there were probably once people who distilled their own liquor, and grew their own tobacco.
The thing is though, that these things tend to damn near vanish as they become regulated (and taxed) rather than legislated.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
I also have to laugh at the whole "grow your own" bit
Not sure why, sounds like you don't know many people that grow their own.
Again, this is going off of 100% legality. Not saying it will ever happen because even today, no country has weed 100% legal, just varying degrees of decriminlization.
You have a bad argument in regards to "if it was legal, people would just grow there own and violence would drop".....
Why? Not too many grow their own. Now, if it was legal, many more would - BUT, it would still be easier to go the gas station, or pharmacy, and buy it. But it would be taxed at a very high rate. So, growing problems aside - it would still be cheaper to buy it - on the street. From dealers or pushers that by pass the taxes. And the violence would be the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
Quote:
And the violence would be the same.
So you you don't think a good portion of weed smokers would grow their own or just buy it at a gas station. If I want to get high, I basically have 3 options.
1 grow it myself
2 go to the store
3 Buy it on the street
So you are saying people will still buy it on the streets instead of the conevenience and safety of buying at a store or growing it themselves? and that's why drug related violence will stay the same? I find that hard to believe.
So if it were legal, what percentage of people do you think would still head to the streets for their weed? Most of the people I know would just grow it themselves or buy it at a store. That's just my friends though.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
If people were allowed to grow it themselves, how would the gov't. tax it? If the gov't. can't tax it - the whole "look how much tax money we'd get" thought goes out the window.
So, you buy it at the corner store - with the taxes included. Presto - that makes it more expensive than the illegal stuff bought on the street. Boom - people will still buy it from illegal dealers (not all people, ok?), the violence will still be there - so we haven't accomplished very much, have we?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
arch, I have to disagree with you. If pot was allowed to be grown out in the open like tobacco and processed and sold out in the open, there is no way that adding a little tax to it would make it as expensive as it is on the black market.. not even close.
That is until the market has successfully eliminated all of the underground pot market, then the government can start jacking up its sin tax on pot like they do with gas and fatty food and gambling, etc..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
California is already pretty much doing this. Growers to dispensaries, everybody is taxed. Gov't happy, little to no problem. Cops in some counties have publicized that they will investigate pot robberies just like any other crime. Local businesses like having the pot growers there, they spend money.
American ingenuity is producing a higher-quality product than any other country, keeping the dollars spent here at home. Buy American!
There is just not much violence related to weed trafficking, in the first place. Foreign-country gangs have been largely eliminated due to in-country production. Lots of small distributors, not many large ones. Fewer hi-dollar transactions. Large quantities require semi-trucks to move, harder target for thieves.
Home-growing for personal use is legal in a couple states, it is treated like home beer-making, below a certain quantity it is not taxed. Similar rules apply. How many beer drinkers you know who brew their own? It is not simple to produce a good-quality product.
It's hard to carry enough weed in your pocket somebody would want to rob you for, crack or needle drugs is a whole different animal.
If a pot dealer is robbed, it is usually by a pill-popper looking to sell the weed to buy a fix of harder stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
Quote:
There is just not much violence related to weed trafficking, in the first place. Foreign-country gangs have been largely eliminated due to in-country production.
So the Mexican drug cartels camping and growing in California state parks are, just on vacation? I wouldnt associate violence with Mexican drug cartels either. I'm sure the ak 47's they are packing are for bear protection.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
Quote:
If people were allowed to grow it themselves, how would the gov't. tax it? If the gov't. can't tax it - the whole "look how much tax money we'd get" thought goes out the window.
Well then, we wouldn't be talking about a situation where weed was 100% legal, echo echo.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
It would be 100% legal ...... just regulated by laws ......... like almost each and every other aspect of life.
Cigarettes and alcohol are legal, but regulated by laws.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
If people were allowed to grow it themselves, how would the gov't. tax it? If the gov't. can't tax it - the whole "look how much tax money we'd get" thought goes out the window.
Well then, we wouldn't be talking about a situation where weed was 100% legal, echo echo.
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying......can you explain? It seems to me you're saying if legal pot was taxed, it wouldn't be 100% legal?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
100% legal means everyone is free to grow and distribute as they please. You treat marijuana as plant that anyone on earth is entitled to, if they choose. It's just a plant that is treated no different than a fern or maple tree.
Again, I doubt this will ever happen, but it's nice to think about if you are in to the whole, "free will" thing.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
I don't think anything is 100% legal then ...
I can have oak trees where for the most part I can grow and distribute them as I please. But because of zoning laws I can 100% grow them wherever I want ...
We have the right to bear arms right in the constitution as the 2nd ammendment. But you can't 100% bear them (government buildings, schools, airplanes, etc.)
Or even the freedom of speech ... can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
I just think that if we ever try to argue "100%" then we won't get very far..
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
ok, we wont call it 100% legal. We will call it, adults can grow weed and give it to other adults.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I also have to laugh at the whole "grow your own" bit
Not sure why, sounds like you don't know many people that grow their own.
Again, this is going off of 100% legality. Not saying it will ever happen because even today, no country has weed 100% legal, just varying degrees of decriminlization.
You have a bad argument in regards to "if it was legal, people would just grow there own and violence would drop".....
Why? Not too many grow their own. Now, if it was legal, many more would - BUT, it would still be easier to go the gas station, or pharmacy, and buy it. But it would be taxed at a very high rate. So, growing problems aside - it would still be cheaper to buy it - on the street. From dealers or pushers that by pass the taxes. And the violence would be the same.
You are making a lot of assumptions that don't have to be true at all. Make it just like alcohol. The violence drops dramatically.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Gotcha ... well then my guess is that if it became government regulated ... no-one would want to grow it themselves because it would be cheaper even with a sin tax to buy it from the government then it would be to grow it yourself. Plus they could guarantee quality and all.
I'm not pot expert, but anything that a person would need to grow it - chemicals - soil - seeds - etc. (I bet I'm showing my lack of knowledge) the government could probably do it a lot better ... and that means a lot cheaper weed for people.
In the same way that individuals could grow their own tobacco in their backyard if they want ... but it's simpler and more cost effective to let someone grow it in bulk and then just turn it into the products we want.
Or it's the same reason that most people don't grow their own wheat, they just buy flour at the store..
So it's not a direct answer- but I guess I doubt you would have many problems with people growing it and distributing it themselves ...
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,210
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,210 |
Pot is a lot easier to grow and distribute than tobacco or wheat. There's virtually no processing of the crop before packaging.
LIbertatem Defendimus!!
2010 Dawgtalkers NCAA Bracket Challenge Champ!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
Quote:
I'm not pot expert,
Im not trying to be holier than thou but, you should probably stop there.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk K-9 Consensus Doper Poll
|
|
