MORE Act. Legal Weed?

[BStrong]

I'd be interested in seeing numbers to support this claim. You've only documented one side of the issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...on-in-federal-tax-revenue-and-1-million-jobs/

Jan. 10, 2018 at 2:47 p.m. PST

Legalizing marijuana nationwide would create at least $132 billion in tax revenue and more than a million new jobs across the United States in the next decade, according to a new study.

New Frontier Data, a data analytics firm focused on the cannabis industry, forecasts that if legalized on the federal level, the marijuana industry could create an entirely new tax revenue stream for the government, generating millions of dollars in sales tax and payroll deductions.

“When there are budget deficits and the like, everybody wants to know where is there an additional revenue stream, and one of the most logical places is to go after cannabis and cannabis taxes,” said Beau Whitney, a senior economist at New Frontier Data.

 

[plague311]

I occasionally cook over an open fire. But I think it's disingenuous to compare these things to popping pills, smoking dope, snorting coke or shooting up.

One of these things is not like the others, not like the others, not like the others.

This is the problem though. Marijuana is scheduled like those other things you're referring to (opiods) when it is absolutely nothing like that at all.

I seriously think you're so out of touch with how it is now because the last time you did it you were a teenager that you're just regurgitating decades old talking points.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm saying I don't know what your valuation is. The way you replied doesn't make it clear, at least to my reading comprehension. I'm not arguing with you here, I'm just asking your opinion.

Fair enough. It use to be highly negative. Not so much any more. I realize that people take drugs for a multitude of reasons. I also realize how easy it is to become addicted. (Yes, I know, cannabis is not physically addictive like alchohol, amphetamines, barbiturates or opiates)

Let's just put it this way. People including myself have weaknesses. I'm not a big fan of casting stones when I live in a glass house. For some people, taking drugs helps them survive the day. And how you get your freak on is your personal business. Who am I to judge? That said, I am endlessly frustrated with drug users.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

@BStrong. You keep providing evidence for the side I don't need further evidence on. I understand taxing pot will be a tax on pot and will be a pot tax. I never questioned that, nor needed any convincing. You're documenting the obvious side of the issue.

The question is whether Feds will be OK losing asset forfeitures and jobs at DEA (possibly elsewhere).

 

[3point14]

Fair enough. It use to be highly negative. Not so much any more. I realize that people take drugs for a multitude of reasons. I also realize how easy it is to become addicted. (Yes, I know, cannabis is not physically addictive like alchohol, amphetamines, barbiturates or opiates)

Let's just put it this way. People including myself have weaknesses. I'm not a big fan of casting stones when I live in a glass house. For some people, taking drugs helps them survive the day. And how you get your freak on is your personal business. Who am I to judge? That said, I am endlessly frustrated with drug users.

Isn't that, er, a judgement?

 

[varwoche]

In terms of stoners being slackers -- to the extent true and that surely is non zero -- in my view the main contributor is the lethargy effect an hour or two after smoking, more so than the psychoactive/cognitive effect.

 

[acbytesla]

One of these things is not like the others, not like the others, not like the others.

This is the problem though. Marijuana is scheduled like those other things you're referring to (opiods) when it is absolutely nothing like that at all.

I seriously think you're so out of touch with how it is now because the last time you did it you were a teenager that you're just regurgitating decades old talking points.

You think I have a memory problem? That's precious.

I don't believe cannabis should be a schedule 1 drug. It's a mistake that it has ever been one. I'm also in favor of its legalization or at least decriminalization. Alcohol is ten times worse and it is legal. That said, I don't care to deal with an individual who is drunk or "baked". But I'll take dealing with someone who is stoned over the drunk every day and twice on Sunday.

 

[acbytesla]

Isn't that, er, a judgement?

Probably.

 

[rockysmith76]

ban it everywhere

 

[plague311]

In terms of stoners being slackers -- to the extent true and that surely is non zero -- in my view the main contributor is the lethargy effect an hour or two after smoking, more so than the psychoactive/cognitive effect.

I would agree with this and I would add that once you've smoked long enough it becomes a non issue since I know it's coming.

Different forms\types\strands of marijuana have different effects. Some are mental, some are body buzz, some are sleepy, and edibles have different effects than smoking.

The "potheads are lazy" statement is complete and total ********. The same can be said about people who don't smoke pot as well. Lazy people are lazy. Weed is irrelevant.

 

[acbytesla]

ban it everywhere

That never works.

 

[3point14]

Probably.

Then I think your thinking is confused, you literally contradict yourself in consecutive sentences.


I'm not going to attempt to reason a man out of a position he self evidently hasn't reasoned himself into.

Have a nice day

 

[plague311]

You think I have a memory problem? That's precious.

If I remember right you've stated you're 50+. You said you smoked pot in your earlier days. I know remembering things from 30+ years ago can be difficult, and I also know that marijuana has changed A LOT over the last 20 years. Firsthand. It wasn't a statement about your memory as much as you being away from it for so long your experience has no relevance.

I don't believe cannabis should be a schedule 1 drug. It's a mistake that it has ever been one. I'm also in favor of its legalization or at least decriminalization. Alcohol is ten times worse and it is legal. That said, I don't care to deal with an individual who is drunk or "baked". But I'll take dealing with someone who is stoned over the drunk every day and twice on Sunday.

It's good to know where you stand, but as I've said you probably deal with stoned people on a consistent basis and have absolutely no idea that they are stoned. In fact, I would almost guarantee it.

 

[acbytesla]

Then I think your thinking is confused, you literally contradict yourself in consecutive sentences.


I'm not going to attempt to reason a man out of a position he self evidently hasn't reasoned himself into.

Have a nice day

You think not wanting to judge people and yet being "frustrated" by them makes me confused? Does having conflicting positions make me incoherent?

Hmmm.

 

[plague311]

You think not wanting to judge people and yet being "frustrated" by them makes me confused? Does having conflicting positions make me incoherent?

Hmmm.

I believe he's pointing out the hypocrisy of saying "I live in a glass house so I don't throw rocks" and then in the next sentence picking up the "druggies are irritating" rock and heaving it as hard as possible at a slough of glass houses, then walking back in your glass house.

 

[acbytesla]

It's good to know where you stand, but as I've said you probably deal with stoned people on a consistent basis and have absolutely no idea that they are stoned. In fact, I would almost guarantee it.

And yet sometimes it's obvious.

 

[3point14]

You think not wanting to judge people and yet being "frustrated" by them makes me confused? Does having conflicting positions make me incoherent?

Hmmm.

No, following 'who am I to judge' with a a judgement makes you confused.

Sticking to your current, logically deeply flawed position, whereby you have actively sought out those for whom drug use causes an issue and called them the whole population makes you incoherent.

 

[BStrong]

@BStrong. You keep providing evidence for the side I don't need further evidence on. I understand taxing pot will be a tax on pot and will be a pot tax. I never questioned that, nor needed any convincing. You're documenting the obvious side of the issue.

The question is whether Feds will be OK losing asset forfeitures and jobs at DEA (possibly elsewhere).

They wouldn't "lose asset forfeiture." I explained how federal and state law functions wrt individuals involved in non-licensed operations that constitute criminal acts - the fact that "the other guy" is legal and licensed and can't be prosecuted doesn't in any way mean the guy who isn't licensed is exempt from criminal statutes, including asset forfeiture.

As far as the DEA having to lose agents, you're assuming facts not in evidence. Were marijuana to be legalized at the federal level and removed from the fed. Schedule 1 list they'd still have the rest of the list to focus on.

https://www.drugs.com/article/csa-schedule-1.html

Reference CSA Schedules List of Schedule 1 Drugs

List of Schedule 1 Drugs
Medically reviewed by L. Anderson, PharmD Last updated on May 18, 2018.

Schedule I drugs are those that have the following characteristic according to the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA):
Drugs or Substances listed in DEA Schedule I may include:

Heroin (diacetylmorphine)

LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide)

Marijuana (cannabis, THC)

Mescaline (Peyote)

MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or “ecstasy”)
GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid) - except formulations in an FDA-approved drug product sodium oxybate (Xyrem) are Schedule III
Ecstasy (MDMA or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine)

Psilocybin

Synthetic marijuana and analogs (Spice, K2)

Methaqualone (Quaalude)

Khat (Cathinone)

Bath Salts (3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone or MDPV)
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) schedule information displayed above applies to drugs or substances regulated under federal law. There may be variations in CSA schedules between individual states and federal law. For example, some drugs or compounds may be deemed a schedule I drug or may be listed in a different schedule in a state's specific controlled substance act, which may differ from the federal controlled substance act.

DEA would have no trouble reassigning their people to other tasks. It could be that a selling point for legal marijuana at the federal level would be allocating marijuana tax revenue to the DEA or other federal LEA's.

 

[acbytesla]

I believe he's pointing out the hypocrisy of saying "I live in a glass house so I don't throw rocks" and then in the next sentence picking up the "druggies are irritating" rock and heaving it as hard as possible at a slough of glass houses, then walking back in your glass house.

Being "frustrated" by others is a regular experience for me. But I also know that we may not be the "Captain of our own ship". That free will may be an illusion and all of us are simply the product of forces that we do not control. Is being "frustrated" a judgment or a reaction? It's certainly not the result of contemplation.

 

[acbytesla]

No, following 'who am I to judge' with a a judgement makes you confused.

Sticking to your current, logically deeply flawed position, whereby you have actively sought out those for whom drug use causes an issue and called them the whole population makes you incoherent.

Deeply flawed. LMAO.