Thread: Should it be legalized?

Originally Posted by Thantos

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.

Originally Posted by Elysia

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.

Originally Posted by robwhit

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?

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...

Originally Posted by Mario F.

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.

Originally Posted by mike_g

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?

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.

Originally Posted by robwhit

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.