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.

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.

uh no, that's not it. with decreased tax revenue from cigarette sales, what makes you think there will be more money to invest as per your first paragraph? maybe it's just me, but less taxes = less money for the local and state governments to spend on their pet projects. you'll find the taxes from cig sales on health care being quite minimal.

now if marijuana gets legalized and they tax that at a minimum equal to that of cigarettes. however, i have my doubts that it will equal the amount of taxes cigarettes currently generates.

Yeah HAL 9000 was messin with you. I knew you were referring to less cig smokers, not less pot smokers.

But either way... if we think about less cig smokers, there are more than reasonable healthcare costs in the long term. Money that can be better dedicated to, say... a nest egg or to better living/spending.

But a more 1:1 comparison of taxation (cig to pot) would be in order now wouldn't it?

I'd assume due to the ... umm... rather recreational nature of marijuana and its non-addictiveness compared to cigs, that perhaps it would retail at a higher cost versus cigs. Therefore, on a 1:1 basis, the tax revenue for pot could be greater as long as enough smokers switch over to pot.

All you'd need is for the tax legislation to be specifically tied to being at a minimum equal to the rate for tobacco products and so on... progressively tied to the price of weed itself.

Of course, that ain't gonna happen... or HAL 9000 doesn't think it would.

Then there is the decriminalization aspect and the law enforcement costs involved... staggering indeed. And easily funneled to places where needed in lieu of enforcing old laws.

[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.........

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.

uh no, that's not it. with decreased tax revenue from cigarette sales, what makes you think there will be more money to invest as per your first paragraph? maybe it's just me, but less taxes = less money for the local and state governments to spend on their pet projects. you'll find the taxes from cig sales on health care being quite minimal.

now if marijuana gets legalized and they tax that at a minimum equal to that of cigarettes. however, i have my doubts that it will equal the amount of taxes cigarettes currently generates.

Yeah HAL 9000 was messin with you. I knew you were referring to less cig smokers, not less pot smokers.

But either way... if we think about less cig smokers, there are more than reasonable healthcare costs in the long term. Money that can be better dedicated to, say... a nest egg or to better living/spending.

But a more 1:1 comparison of taxation (cig to pot) would be in order now wouldn't it?

I'd assume due to the ... umm... rather recreational nature of marijuana and its non-addictiveness compared to cigs, that perhaps it would retail at a higher cost versus cigs. Therefore, on a 1:1 basis, the tax revenue for pot could be greater as long as enough smokers switch over to pot.

All you'd need is for the tax legislation to be specifically tied to being at a minimum equal to the rate for tobacco products and so on... progressively tied to the price of weed itself.

Of course, that ain't gonna happen... or HAL 9000 doesn't think it would.

Then there is the decriminalization aspect and the law enforcement costs involved... staggering indeed. And easily funneled to places where needed in lieu of enforcing old laws.

i just have a sneaking suspicion that when fed, state, and local governments see their pile of money decreasing as cig smoking goes down, they'll find other ways to make up the shortfall. and probably via taxes that will hit everyone, not just "sin taxes"

[Amby 490]

I'm gonna go outside and light up a fatty

[HAL 9000 96]

Naaaa... remember that there are correlations between less 'sin' occurrence of this sort and decreased public expenditures... I'd not be that worried and think that we'd see PSAs begging folks to kick-start habits.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I'm gonna go outside and light up a fatty

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

End drug prohibition.

[aidan80 9]

Free the Weed!

[SaadBell 0]

For you Charles, I think this is in line with the topic, there are tons of people being arrested and charged and put away all for the war on drugs. This shows you how many are behind bars, all for non-violent drug offenses. You can get less time for a murder, since there are no mandatory times, like we have for drugs.

[Krikit 1,164]

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

For you Charles, I think this is in line with the topic, there are tons of people being arrested and charged and put away all for the war on drugs. This shows you how many are behind bars, all for non-violent drug offenses. You can get less time for a murder, since there are no mandatory times, like we have for drugs.

as drugs are not broken down into a violent/non-violent category, that's a stretch to say they are all non-violent. i'm certain more than a few have committed violent acts to obtain their drugs or cash to further their habit.

just so i can understand this - if something is illegal and is punishable by jail time, why do people still do it?