A Smarter Way to Deal with Pot Than Arresting 20 Million People

[HAL 9000 96]

I think the argument missed by some is that the decriminalization and the increased tax revenue aspects alone would create quite a windfall surplus to cover other areas to increase funding of more critical areas of law enforcement, social upkeep, etc.

Also would create more police to counter the (obvious) increased amounts of hotboxing legalization would establish.

I think the problem "Steven" has with my posts is I don't take a tough stance on the issue. I'm not FOR legalization, nor AGAINST it. It's very easy to religiously argue a stance when you're that convinced.

Yes HAL 9000 understands your personal view.

HAL 9000 computes the bulk flow of the matter- not just specific effects that may be questionable based on different consumer preferences. Given other markets, it could be argued several ways that marijuana legalization would have some independent adverse effects. While in the majority of other markets, the effect would be bulk positive. Hence the drive by some non-pot smokers to favor legalization.

[IAMX 3,055]

If the government were to legalize it, it would be grown everywhere, especially houses, where it already is. Almost no one would bother buying it from the store, and the government would not be able to regulate people growing it, as most would grow it to smoke it themselves, or give to their friends, not to sell it. Because of this, the government is aware it cannot regulate it, instead, just makes it illegal.

It is also possible to make your own beer at home, but people still buy it. Although certainly there will be many who will grow their own, I think you'll find that, like most things, marketing would work wonders for the commercial pot industry.

True to an extent, and no doubt some small portion would buy it, but the type of effort needed over the span of growing a cannabis plant versus brewing a beer is a bit different. Not to mention perceptions of being taxed for something you can easily grow at home. If you consider all of the plants people have inside and out of their houses, or their gardens, and how efficient people are at watering those (some automatically), or pruning, it's very easy to see how most would just grow it from home and say screw buying it and getting taxed on it.

All good points, but, like Rocks said, people still prefer the ease of buying the majority of their veg from a store rather than cultivating it in their own garden. The commercialised pot industry would work in the same way - "We do the 'hard' work for you. We'll put pot vending machines in bars for when you run out. We'll make you look cool for buying our brand rather than smoking that wimpy home-grown hippy stuff you got off your roommate.." etc.

If they make it cheap enough, I can see it happening on a larger scale that would benefit actual sales within the scope of taxes or enforcement. But.. there are large holes missing. Using land for it in mass production means paying taxes (+lease, if not owned) for the land, you pay for workers, pay to adhere to regulations, and so on. These costs ultimately gets passed back to the consumer. I can see those who are out of stash and need some more rather quickly doing this. I can see those who don't have a house, nor the room for it. But growing it for free makes an economy similar to that of sharing music for free. One which doesn't hurt your wallet is one that gets more attention.

[HAL 9000 96]

Then free-growth beyond a set limit size can be legislated. Kind of like possession of certain amounts in certain jurisdictions now days is penalized only with a fine.

The technicalities can be amazing... and perhaps if not criminalizing a weed farm over a certain acreage size, then it can be taxed as a use tax or something like that.

It can only be as clear as the legislation that is written to code its cultivation, sale, and taxation under potentially different scenarios.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I think the argument missed by some is that the decriminalization and the increased tax revenue aspects alone would create quite a windfall surplus to cover other areas to increase funding of more critical areas of law enforcement, social upkeep, etc.

Spot on, HAL.

glad to see someone is thinking ahead about the loss of tax revenue that is occurring as more and more quit. 13 billion a year and dropping.........

[HAL 9000 96]

I think the argument missed by some is that the decriminalization and the increased tax revenue aspects alone would create quite a windfall surplus to cover other areas to increase funding of more critical areas of law enforcement, social upkeep, etc.

Spot on, HAL.

glad to see someone is thinking ahead about the loss of tax revenue that is occurring as more and more quit. 13 billion a year and dropping.........

Indeed, Charles brings up an interesting point to ponder... More and more quit = more cost savings in health care costs associated with less use. Also, more funds available to invest in non-marijuana economics.

Less tax revenue coming from something that was previously not generating any tax revenue to begin with? Or less tax revenue coming from something that previously would have generated more expenses in law enforcement dedicating time to investigating, arresting, and prosecuting criminals? HAL 9000 believes the answer makes for good, rational logic.

[mawilson 2,133]

I think the argument missed by some is that the decriminalization and the increased tax revenue aspects alone would create quite a windfall surplus to cover other areas to increase funding of more critical areas of law enforcement, social upkeep, etc.

Spot on, HAL.

Why not criminalize it even more, put more people in jail and make them work for free to create a windfall surplus?

[Amby 490]

I'm not really into anyone doing any drugs or breaking the law but is pot really THAT bad? I find the smell way less offensive than cigarettes.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think the argument missed by some is that the decriminalization and the increased tax revenue aspects alone would create quite a windfall surplus to cover other areas to increase funding of more critical areas of law enforcement, social upkeep, etc.

Spot on, HAL.

Why not criminalize it even more, put more people in jail and make them work for free to create a windfall surplus?

HAL 9000 believes that would not generate as much revenue due to law enforcement, judicial, and penal costs involved. Plus the 'free labor' seems a bit dodgy. Comedic as it seems. Perhaps a pilot study with other criminal offenders presently in the system? Oh right... already happening, but not on a national, organized level.

I'm not really into anyone doing any drugs or breaking the law but is pot really THAT bad? I find the smell way less offensive than cigarettes.

HAL 9000 agrees. My olfactory sensors tell me the 'smell' is similar to burning oregano. Does Amby concur?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Steve, you go to your sons elementary school to pick him up and he's sharin a blunt with his fellow forth graders.

[Amby 490]

I think the argument missed by some is that the decriminalization and the increased tax revenue aspects alone would create quite a windfall surplus to cover other areas to increase funding of more critical areas of law enforcement, social upkeep, etc.

Spot on, HAL.

Why not criminalize it even more, put more people in jail and make them work for free to create a windfall surplus?

HAL 9000 believes that would not generate as much revenue due to law enforcement, judicial, and penal costs involved. Plus the 'free labor' seems a bit dodgy. Comedic as it seems. Perhaps a pilot study with other criminal offenders presently in the system? Oh right... already happening, but not on a national, organized level.

I'm not really into anyone doing any drugs or breaking the law but is pot really THAT bad? I find the smell way less offensive than cigarettes.

HAL 9000 agrees. My olfactory sensors tell me the 'smell' is similar to burning oregano. Does Amby concur?

I'll burn some oregano when I get home and let you know

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the argument missed by some is that the decriminalization and the increased tax revenue aspects alone would create quite a windfall surplus to cover other areas to increase funding of more critical areas of law enforcement, social upkeep, etc.

Spot on, HAL.

Why not criminalize it even more, put more people in jail and make them work for free to create a windfall surplus?

Why stop with marijuana....lets criminalize alcohol again...because it worked so well before.

[mawilson 2,133]

I think the argument missed by some is that the decriminalization and the increased tax revenue aspects alone would create quite a windfall surplus to cover other areas to increase funding of more critical areas of law enforcement, social upkeep, etc.

Spot on, HAL.

Why not criminalize it even more, put more people in jail and make them work for free to create a windfall surplus?

Why stop with marijuana....lets criminalize alcohol again...because it worked so well before.

Too many alcoholics, not enough prisons.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the argument missed by some is that the decriminalization and the increased tax revenue aspects alone would create quite a windfall surplus to cover other areas to increase funding of more critical areas of law enforcement, social upkeep, etc.

Spot on, HAL.

Why not criminalize it even more, put more people in jail and make them work for free to create a windfall surplus?

Why stop with marijuana....lets criminalize alcohol again...because it worked so well before.

Too many alcoholics, not enough prisons.

More free workers...think forward, man.

[HAL 9000 96]

Ahhh... well we'll at least need to call them Gulags since for them to be cost effective, free-labor and all, our tax expense to maintain the prison population alive will still be quite a doozy.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Your fifth grader goes to Billy's for a sleep over,comes home saying billy's dad has some good shite.