View Poll Results: Should Marijuana be legalized in the U.S.?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    23 67.65%
  • No

    11 32.35%

Should it be legalized?

This is a discussion on Should it be legalized? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by robwhit Why would you want to tax marijuana? If it was legalized, why shouldn't they be able ...

  1. #46
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by robwhit View Post
    Why would you want to tax marijuana? If it was legalized, why shouldn't they be able to buy/sell it unencumbered?
    Why not? We tax beer and tobacco so why not pot? Hell we tax most goods.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia
    It was banned for a reason.
    And what if the reason for it being banned was because it was considered a drug only Mexican used and we wanted to oppress them? Would that be a valid reason for keeping it banned? (Note: No idea if the reason I just used is historically accurate or not)

  2. #47
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    > If certain drugs were legalized I think we'd see a decrease in crime associated with the production and distribution of those drugs.
    Yeah, all the way down to zero in fact. Are there any gun-toting drinks barons left in the US?
    If the product is legal, then it follows production and supply is legal as well.
    I don't think we'd see the crimes disappear for a good while. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see a spike in violent crime immediately following a ban lift. Some people stand to lose quite a lot of money so I could see them fight to maintain control of it. Over time it would decrease as they moved onto other forms of controlled substances.

    Interesting thought: I wonder how much drug suppliers (the illegal kind) pay out in bribes (aka "contributions") to politicians to maintain the bans on certain drugs?

  3. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Thantos View Post
    Why not? We tax beer and tobacco so why not pot? Hell we tax most goods.
    Taxing something just for uniformity is a good way to turn things to pot (pun intended).

    Besides, since when is "why not?" a good reason to tax things?

  4. #49
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Thantos View Post
    Interesting thought: I wonder how much drug suppliers (the illegal kind) pay out in bribes (aka "contributions") to politicians to maintain the bans on certain drugs?
    Not as much as the drug suppliers (legal kind) pay out in bribes (aka "contributions") to politicians to keep the bans off certain drugs? Would you think they contribute more than Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis or any other similar company to the campaigns in this years election in the USA? These aren't all US companies I named.
    Sent from my iPad®

  5. #50
    Dr Dipshi++ mike_g's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    On me hyperplane
    Posts
    1,218
    Interesting thought: I wonder how much drug suppliers (the illegal kind) pay out in bribes (aka "contributions") to politicians to maintain the bans on certain drugs?
    I don't think they pay anything for that; its more like how much they pay to launder their money.

    Taxing something just for uniformity is a good way to turn things to pot (pun intended).
    Taxing drugs is a good way to discourage excessive use. It also adds an extra motivator for people that want to give up a habit.

  6. #51
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Well, whatever they do with it. It was banned for a reason.
    As other suggested, you should really at the very least inform yourself before participating in a debate with such sort of arguments (or lack of them).

    These are the words of Harry J. Anslinger, then director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics when just after the lifting of the Prohibition, he testified before Congress defending what was then called the Marijuana Prohibition and that later was put to motion with the The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which is in effect to this day in the USA. Listen to this, my dear:

    "Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind. Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes."

    And so Marijuana was banned. It is agreed in many circles that the causes behind Marijuana banning and - prior public defacing - have to do with the then emerging industries of plastics and synthetic fibers of which the USA historical hemp production was a real competitor. Naturally these claims cannot be proven. But it was exactly with the destruction of the hemp industry (edit: that can be traced to the founding of the nation) that these new industries finally were able to take over, some of them ran by industry barons with seats in the Congress and with special relations with the USA government.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 06-02-2008 at 04:45 PM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  7. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
    Taxing drugs is a good way to discourage excessive use.
    Excessive to whom?

  8. #53
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    Quote Originally Posted by robwhit View Post
    Excessive to whom?
    I don't know how it works in your country, but over here if it is legal and it is being sold, it is taxed. From drugs to milk. What's your problem with that?
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    Sales tax and cigarette tax are two different taxes. To say that it should be harder to do one legal thing than to do another legal thing just because of some nebulous political ethics, in my opinion, is not in the spirit of a free country.

  10. #55
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    From the point of view of the end consumer there's no difference between taxes. But I can understand your point. However, tobacco related taxes aren't your typical taxes. In Portugal for instance, they are applied in medical research and health care investments only. The government cannot just grab this money and change the furniture on the prime minister house, or build a new school.

    Drug related taxes are just a natural thought in a modern (I agree, overly fixated in taxes, mind you) western country. More, the money could be used effectively to fight addiction and to prevent it. It would also no doubt have a potential to reduce consumption since this is proved worldwide on the case of tobacco. Although on the subject of Marijuana I sustain (having always smoked it) this drug is so pathetically ineffective at creating dependency or altering the state of mind that the only health issues resolting from it will be because of continuous abuse over the years...
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  11. #56
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Drug related taxes are just a natural thought in a modern (I agree, overly fixated in taxes, mind you) western country. More, the money could be used effectively to fight addiction and to prevent it.
    I agree in principle -- but there is a clear, scientifically accepted chain of evidence linking tobacco smoke to lung cancer. This leads to social disadvantage via:

    Smoking --> Health Risk --> Tobacco-related Illness --> Medical cost --> Social cost

    The taxation, theoretically, should act to reduce the last element of that chain, social cost.

    For other drugs, I think the chain is less clear:

    Drug X --> Addiction --> ??? --> Social cost

    Unless we can find a clear proof of what "???" is and conclusively link it to both addiction and social cost, then I reject the premise that addiction, in and of itself, is a social problem.

    Of course some drugs are such that using the drug and then interacting with society can have an immediate cost:

    Get drunk --> Drive --> Kill somebody --> Social cost

    But "addiction" isn't part of that chain. Driving drunk, whether you are an alcoholic or not, has the same results.

    </rambling>

  12. #57
    Dr Dipshi++ mike_g's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    On me hyperplane
    Posts
    1,218
    More, the money could be used effectively to fight addiction and to prevent it.
    Like making more of those smoking awareness campaigns you love

    Sales tax and cigarette tax are two different taxes. To say that it should be harder to do one legal thing than to do another legal thing just because of some nebulous political ethics, in my opinion, is not in the spirit of a free country.
    Well maybe you could consider it as an entertainment value tax. At the end of the day the cheaper it is the more people are likely to spend their money getting stoned as opposed to other forms of entertainment. It also would do more to encourage lazy stoners to get a job.

  13. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    From the point of view of the end consumer there's no difference between taxes.
    Except perhaps for their intended economic impacts and their discerning and cumulative effects.
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
    Well maybe you could consider it as an entertainment value tax. At the end of the day the cheaper it is the more people are likely to spend their money getting stoned as opposed to other forms of entertainment. It also would do more to encourage lazy stoners to get a job.
    Yeah, I don't think you get it. Who are you to tell me how I can spend my money and what I do for entertainment? What's wrong with getting stoned all day if that's what I want to do?
    Last edited by robwhit; 06-02-2008 at 06:30 PM.

  14. #59
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    There are answers that fill that ???. They are however not so easily labeled as in the case of tobacco.

    (note that I'm speaking here of drugs in general. Not just marijuana, but everything that we usually tag as less and more dangerous drugs)

    - Social ineptitude in those cases where dependency already runs high and one lives only for the purpose of the next rush;
    - Work related problems as it can affect our relations with colleagues and our productivity to a point when we eventually cannot operate anymore;
    - Health related issues of every order. Increased blood pressure, decreased blood pressure, mental disorders, liver problems, hearth conditions, kidney failures, blood poisoning, weakening of the immunity system... All sorts of problems that have been diagnosed and found to be resulting of drugs consumption in the past. I think I focused on the most common ones.

    As for the taxes themselves... it's clearly a problem of political orientation
    I'm more... left-winged if you may. I look at taxes not really as a way of reducing government costs, but as a direct income which the state is obliged to dispose.

    Naturally this is usually done in cutting costs and providing new investments, but the different mindset here helps me better defend the idea that once the state legalizes and taxes a drug, it is also its (not only the state's of course, but you get it) obligation to provide the means to help fight the ???'s I listed above.

    For instance tobacco awareness campaigns that pollute my TV set (thankfully there was a decline recently for an interesting reason I will share if you feel an interest) are payed solely from either tobacco related taxes when government sponsored, or privately owned money when done by other organizations.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  15. #60
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    Quote Originally Posted by robwhit View Post
    Except perhaps for their intended economic impacts and their discerning and cumulative effects.
    Very well then. You agree then they may have an impact in consumption?

    Note that I'm the first to argue this should not be the reason behind the decision to legalize or not for reasons I think I have explained before. But, on the subject of taxation we can generally agree it has at the very least the potential to reduce consumption.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Should it be legalized - Part Deux
    By medievalelks in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 06-11-2008, 07:17 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21